MENS REA CONTINUED   
 

 

In Regina v. Cunningham note the statute under which the appellant was convicted.  What is the actus reus and the mens rea if any? What does the appellant challenge.  It always best to frame the issue in your own words.
Note that both purpose and recklessness reflect an intention (or knowing risk) as to the harm that results from an act (i.e. here it is endangering the victim's life).  How do these defintions compare with the trial judge's instructions to the jury on the meaning of malcious?  Why did the court overturn the conviction?
The case of Regina v. Faulkner is similar; however a significant difference is that the fire was clearly an accident.  What legal proposition does this case stand for when a crime is done and a collateral accident happens?  What is missing from the act of lighting the fire that would make it a crime.

What both these cases are relying upon implicitly is a very common sense notion of responsiblity notwithstanding that the way we speak about responsiblity often clouds what our tradition assumes.  One can only be responsible for one's actions, not the consequences.  Put differently, and importantly, one is responsible for one's choices, for that which is in one's control.  One chooses to act purposefully, knowingingly, recklessly, or even negligently (i.e. without caution, and reflection).
The criminal law holds us responsible for making a choice to wrong and hence requires some level of intention to exist in order for us to say that a wrong actually did occur.  Recall Blackstone, without a vicious will there is no wrong at all.
You may want to make a note to yourself to be sure to turn back to Faulkner when we come to the Felony murder rule.