R v Roberts

The case of *R v Roberts* concerned an appeal against a conviction for assault. The appellant, Roberts, was found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm by a jury in the District Court of South Australia. The Crown alleged that Roberts had intentionally or recklessly caused the victim to suffer actual bodily harm. Roberts appealed this conviction to the Supreme Court of South Australia, Criminal Division.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court was whether the trial judge had erred in their directions to the jury regarding the element of recklessness in the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the jury had been adequately instructed on the subjective nature of recklessness, namely, that the prosecution must prove the accused foresaw the *possibility* of their conduct causing actual bodily harm and proceeded with that conduct regardless.

The Full Court reasoned that the trial judge's directions on recklessness were insufficient. They held that the jury should have been clearly directed that recklessness requires proof that the accused was aware of a *possibility* that their actions might cause actual bodily harm, and that they nonetheless engaged in that conduct. The court emphasised that it is not enough for the accused's conduct to be objectively reckless; the prosecution must prove subjective foresight of the risk.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.