Coleman v The Queen

The applicant, Mr. Coleman, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of a lower court. The respondent was the Crown. The central issue concerned the meaning of "malice" in criminal law, both at common law and as a statutory concept.

The High Court was required to consider the nature of malice, particularly in the context of recklessness, and how it applied to offences against the person. The applicant's argument, as presented by Mr. James QC, focused on the interpretation of recklessness as a form of malice, drawing upon English case law, specifically *Reg v Spratt*, *Reg v Venna*, and *Reg v Cunningham*.

The court's attention was directed to the definition of recklessness in *Reg v Cunningham*, which involved an accused foreseeing that harm might be done and proceeding to take that risk. The applicant's counsel highlighted that this understanding of recklessness, involving advertence to the consequences of an act, was consistent with the direction given in *Reg v Venna*. The court was invited to consider whether a person who recklessly applies physical force to another should be considered outside the criminal law of assault, noting the often indistinguishable line between intention and recklessness in such cases. The applicant's argument also touched upon the difficulties in applying the *Caldwell* test for recklessness.