The trial judge in Parker:

"It [slamming down the phone] was the act of a man who did not care whether or not damage resulted from what he did in the circumstances in which damage was likely."

"A reckless act is an act done without thought for the consequence of it."

The appellant argues that here the trial judge casts recklessness in objective terms.

What is objective about these formulations?

"A man is reckless in the sense required when he carries out a deliberate act knowing or closing his mind to the obvious fact that there is some risk of damage resulting from that act but nevertheless continuing in the performance of that act."

and says that the trial judge's instructions were compatible with this formulation. How so?

We can think of Parker as making a point about what awareness of risk consists in, and so what is required to prove awareness of risk.

"Wilful blindness is distinct from recklessness because, while recklessness involves knowledge of a danger or risk and persistence in a course of conduct which creates a risk that the prohibited result will occur, wilful blindness arises where a person who has become aware of the need for some inquiry declines to make the inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth. He would prefer to remain ignorant. The culpability in recklessness is justified by consciousness of the risk and by proceeding in the face of it, while in wilful blindness it is justified by the accused's fault in deliberately failing to inquire when he knows there is reason for inquiry."

"Wilful blindness is the equivalent of actual knowledge."

"Wilful blindness is imputed knowledge."

What does this mean? Is it faithful to the point in Sansregret?