Criminal Law

1. Causation and
Drugs cases

2. R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR
110
Facts: In this case two friends spent a night
injecting each other with heroin and water
mixes. The victim had prepared the mixture
but Cato had injected it.
Held: D was Convicted on the basis that the
administering of a noxious thing was an
offence in the OAPA 1861. The Defendants
act had caused the victims death.

3. R v Dalby (1982) 74 Cr
App R 348
Facts: D obtained a drug on prescription,
shared some of it with a friend and they
injected themselves. Death occurred and
the basis of the prosecution was that D had
acted illegally and dangerously by
supplying the drug.
Held: Rejected as the cause of death was
not the supply. The principle of causation is
not satisfied, despite the morally wrong
behaviour of D.

4. R v Khan and Khan
[1998] Crim LR 830
FACTS: The Ds had supplied heroin to a new user who
took it in their presence and then collapsed. They left
her alone and when they returned she had died.
PRINCIPLES: Ds convictions for unlawful act
manslaughter were quashed because there was no
positive act that caused death, but C of A thought
there could be a duty to summon medical assistance
in certain circumstances. This indicates that to balance
moral culpability with legal culpability the courts may
recognise liability for an omission.

5. R v Dias [2002] 2 Cr
App R 5
FACTS: D was a heroin addict and V was not
known to inject heroin. D prepared a
syringe and gave it to V who injected
herself. V became very ill, D asked a passer
by to call an ambulance.
PRINCIPLES: D’s conviction for manslaughter
was quashed, Vs act broke the chain of
causation. Again, the court suggested that
it might be possible to establish a duty not
to supply and prepare drugs.

6. R v Rogers [2003]
1 WLR 1374
Facts: D applied and held a tourniquet (a belt) on the
arm of a V while he injected himself with heroin.
Held: The application of the tourniquet was "part and
parcel of the unlawful act of administering heroin"
and D was playing a part in the mechanics of the
injection which caused death, therefore, causation
was satisfied.

7. R v Kennedy (No 2)
[2007] UKHL 38
Facts: A man V asked D to supply him with heroin, both
lived in a hostel; D filled a syringe and gave it to V, who
injected himself, he died by inhalation of gastric contents
while acutely intoxicated by opiates and alcohol.
Held: Where the deceased was a fully informed and
responsible adult, it was never appropriate to find guilty
of manslaughter a person who had been involved in the
supply to the deceased of a Class A controlled drug,
which had then been freely and voluntarily self-
administered by the deceased, and the administration of
the drug had caused his death. An intervening act of the
victim can break the chain of causation. The UAM charge
was not successful.

8. R v Evans [2009] 2 Cr App R
10
Facts: The appellant was convicted of gross negligence
manslaughter along with her mother in relation to the death
of her 17 year old sister. The appellant bought some heroin
and gave it to her sister who self injected the heroin and then
developed symptoms which the appellant recognised as
being consistent with an overdose. The appellant and her
mother decided not to seek medical assistance for fear of
getting into trouble. Her sister died. She was convicted of
GNM and appealed.
Held: Conviction upheld. The duty of care arose not out of
her familial relationship, nor from actions in seeking to care
for her sister, but from supplying the heroin. She had created
a dangerous situation and failed to take action to reduce the
risk by summoning medical assistance which would have
saved her.