R v Parker [1977]

1. Facts:

• The defendant smashed a public telephone in a telephone box.

• Parker was so angry that he did not consider the damage he was causing to the telephone.

2. Outcome:

• Parker was convicted despite his claim that he did not consciously recognise the potential damage.

• The court held that wilful ignorance of the risk did not absolve him of liability.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Recklessness Standard: The case reinforced that recklessness involves a disregard for obvious risks, not the subjective awareness of those risks.

• Wilful Ignorance: The ruling established that deliberately choosing not to consider the potential for harm does not excuse criminal liability.

• Legal Precedent: This case underscores that a failure to acknowledge risk, even if due to anger or other emotions, does not exempt one from being held accountable for reckless behaviour.