“Practical, but nonetheless principled”? MacAngus and Kane
| Published date | 01 June 2009 |
| Author | Lindsay Farmer |
| DOI | 10.3366/E1364980909000651 |
| Date | 01 June 2009 |
| Pages | 502-507 |
The Scots law of criminal homicide has been in a state of considerable flux since the decision in
See also
[2009] HCJAC 8, 2009 SLT 137. The opinion of the court was delivered by Lord Justice General Hamilton.
In the first case, Kevin MacAngus was charged with the unlawful supply of ketamine to a group of five friends, as a consequence of which one of them died. The five had visited MacAngus at his flat in Glasgow and given him money to buy the drug. On his return to the flat, some of the group, including MacAngus himself, nasally ingested the drug. The deceased man was found in the flat the following morning, having died from ketamine intoxication, possibly as the result of repeated snorting. Forensic analysis established that he had ingested ketamine on previous occasions.
The facts in the second case were slightly different. Michael Kane, a heroin user, had been drinking with the deceased, Sheila MacMillan, and her partner, William Smillie, at their home. The deceased and Smillie expressed an interest in trying heroin, and gave money to Kane to purchase the drug. Kane then prepared the drug for injection, and injected first the deceased and then Smillie, with their consent, when they were unable to do so on their own. Both subsequently passed out. MacMillan had died by the time paramedics arrived, and Smillie was close to death. Kane was later charged with unlawful supply and injection of heroin as a consequence of which MacMillan died.
Both appellants raised pleas as to the relevancy of the indictments with respect to the charge of culpable homicide. The specific question raised was whether the approach to cases involving death following the supply of drugs adopted in
Which does not apply to Scotland: see s 78 of the 1861 Act.
Notwithstanding minor factual differences between the two cases in the appeal (the second involved administration rather than supply alone), the challenges to the plea to the relevancy fell under two broad heads.
To continue reading
Request your trial