Sailor v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Sailor, sought to challenge a decision of the Crown. The core of the dispute concerned the proper application of the principles established in the High Court's previous decision in *R v Johns* to directions given to a jury regarding common purpose.

The legal issues before the Court involved determining the scope and applicability of the *Johns* decision, particularly in relation to common purpose directions. The applicant contended that *Johns* should be confined to specific circumstances, namely cases involving the taking of a lethal weapon to a crime and the debate surrounding the probability versus possibility of foresight of consequences in relation to the intentional infliction of death or grievous bodily harm. The applicant sought to distinguish their case from the direct agitation of the correctness of *Johns* itself, instead arguing for a narrower interpretation of its principles.

The applicant's argument, as presented, was that *Johns* was primarily concerned with imputed or constructive intention arising from knowledge of a lethal weapon's presence. They sought to limit the application of *Johns* to such "lethal weapon cases." The applicant argued that while *Johns* contained general statements, its principal concern was the probability versus possibility debate regarding foresight. They submitted that the proper rule, supported by language in *Johns*, is that the possibility of an event identifies the act for which an accused might be criminally responsible, but the extent of that responsibility must then be assessed by reference to their actual intent. The applicant's submission was that the direction given in their case conflicted with this principle by potentially imputing criminal responsibility based on contemplation of possibility without sufficient regard to actual intent, particularly outside the context of lethal weapons.