- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Cunningham (1981) - Intention to Cause GBH & Murder
Citation: Cunningham (1981) HL
Facts:
Citation: Cunningham (1981) HL
Facts:
- Defendant (D) attacked the Victim (V) in a pub.
- D repeatedly hit V with a chair.
- V died as a result of the injuries.
- Is intention to cause grievous bodily harm (GBH), but not death, sufficient mens rea for murder?
- Yes. D was found guilty of murder. Intention to cause GBH is sufficient to establish the mens rea for murder.
- Lord Hailsham LC: "... malice aforethought has never been limited to the intention to kill or to endanger life." This reaffirms the established principle that intending to cause GBH satisfies the malice aforethought element of murder.
- Lord Edmund-Davies (Dissenting): Expressed concerns that intentionally causing serious harm could lead to a murder conviction even if the outcome was unpredictable. However, he acknowledged the opposing view: those who intentionally inflict serious harm should bear the responsibility if death results.
- The Cunningham case reinforces the principle that intending to cause GBH is sufficient mens rea for a murder conviction, even without the intention to kill.
- The case highlights the debate surrounding the moral justification for equating intention to cause GBH with intention to kill in the context of murder.
0 Comments