JNO, Lord Diplock spoke about the relationship to recklessness in a case involving another section of the same Act,
'In the offence under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the word "maliciously" does import upon the part of the person who unlawfully inflicts the wound or other grievous bodily harm an awareness that his act may have the consequence of causing some physical harm to some other person … It is quite unnecessary that the accused should have foreseen that his unlawful act might cause physical harm of the gravity described in te section, i.e. a wound or serious physical injury. It is enough that he should have foreseen that some physical harm to some person, albeit of a minor character, might result.'
The argument is whether the foetus was another person within the meaning of the Act.
LUDWIG, your reasoning is flawed since capital punishment was lawful whilst at the same time the deliberate killing of another was unlawful under Common Law.