R v Dickman

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of R v Dickman, which concerned the interpretation of section 302(1)(b) of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) and the elements of the offence of unlawful dangerous act. The central dispute revolved around whether the prosecution was required to prove that the accused foresaw the risk of death or grievous bodily harm arising from their dangerous act, or whether it was sufficient to prove that a reasonable person would have foreseen such a risk.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the mental element of the offence under section 302(1)(b) of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) required subjective foresight by the accused of the risk of death or grievous bodily harm, or whether an objective standard of foresight was sufficient. This involved an examination of the language of the provision and its place within the broader statutory framework of criminal responsibility.

The High Court held that section 302(1)(b) of the *Criminal Code* (Qld) requires proof of subjective foresight by the accused of the risk of death or grievous bodily harm. The Court reasoned that the language of the provision, particularly the phrase "if death or grievous bodily harm to any person was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the doing of the dangerous act," referred to the foresight of the accused, not that of a reasonable person. The Court distinguished this from other provisions that might employ an objective standard. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.