Another lawyer friend has promised me some notes, building the proposition that in crime as in tort, there may be an "activity duty" where one has or adopts a duty of care, so that the withdrawal of that care or failure to provide it may be part of the actus reus of a crime, and therefore the intention not to provide may also be that relevant part of the mens rea.   Best case maybe about a tramp called Murphy who burned a building down by going to sleep smoking.

Then one would merely need to show that the intention not to provide was reckless (as to whether the consequence would be death) - I apparently need to re-read a case called "Woolley".

Said barrister is however a proselytising atheist so may be building a case here!