For the purposes of s 29(3) of the CLCA, the majority ([name withheld], [name withheld], [name withheld] and [name withheld]) holds that 'reckless indifference' requires knowledge of the likelihood of harm, not merely awareness of a substantial risk, and that trial judges should not gloss the word 'likely' with synonyms. [name withheld] holds that 'likely' is synonymous with 'substantial risk' and that [name withheld] should not be followed on this point. The Court is divided on whether [name withheld] was correctly decided, but unanimous that the conviction should stand. In assessing whether conduct is 'likely' to cause harm, it is permissible to have regard to conduct that might have occurred but did not.
The full text is available to signed-in members.