R v Conlon

In the case of R v Conlon, the respondent was charged with a failure to protect a child under the age of 16 from harm caused by the consumption of methylamphetamine. The case came before the Supreme Court of South Australia for trial. The central dispute was whether the accused was or ought to have been aware that there was an appreciable risk that harm would be caused to the child by the consumption of methylamphetamine, and whether she had failed to take steps that could have reasonably been expected to be taken in these circumstances to protect the victim from harm.

The court had to determine whether the accused had a duty of care towards the child and whether she breached that duty. This involved assessing whether the accused was or ought to have been aware of the risk that the child could consume methylamphetamine and harm herself, and whether the accused took or failed to take reasonable steps to prevent this harm. The court considered the evidence provided, including the text messages and video sent by the accused, as well as the testimony of witnesses.

The court found that the accused did not have a duty of care towards the child in the circumstances of this case, and therefore could not be held liable for the failure to protect the child from harm caused by the consumption of methylamphetamine. The court held that the accused was not or ought not to have been aware of the appreciable risk of harm, and therefore could not be held to have breached any duty of care. The court also found that the accused did not fail to take reasonable steps to protect the child from harm, as she was not aware of the risk.

The Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed the charge against the accused, finding that she was not guilty of the offence. The court made an order that the charge be dismissed and that the accused be acquitted.