R v Webster [1995] 2 All ER 168, FACTS: The defendants had pushed a coping stone from a bridge onto a train, which had hit a carriage showering the passengers with debris from the roof. The conviction had been based on a direction that intent to endanger life by the stone falling on a passenger would suffice. HELD: The court substituted a conviction based on recklessness (per Taylor CJ):

'If the defendant's intention is that the stone itself should crash through the roof of a train or motor vehicle and thereby directly injure a passenger, or if he was reckless only as to that outcome, the section would not bite. If, however, the defendant intended or was reckless that the stone would smash the roof of the train or vehicle so that metal or wood struts from the roof would or obviously might descend upon a passenger, endangering life, he would surely be guilty. This may seem to many a dismal distinction.'