Causation and Assisting Drug-Abuse Injection
| Author | Alan Reed |
| Published date | 01 October 2005 |
| Date | 01 October 2005 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1350/jcla.2005.69.5.384 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
However, it is interesting to compare the facts of R vLewis with the
following summary provided by the trial judge in R vLooseley [2001]
UKHL 53, (2002) 66 JCL 146, when describing the approach adopted by
the European Court of Human Rights in Teixeira de Castro vPortugal
(1998) 4 BHRC 533, where entrapment was established (cited in the
present case at [88]):
a man of relevant good character, was persuaded into just one drug
procurement, possibly against his better judgment, possibly tempted for
gain, and that he was therefore incited into the commission of an offence
which would otherwise never have occurred to him.
It might be argued that this description could also be applied to Lewis,
who was similarly of previous good character and who had no dealings
with counterfeit currency prior to the request from the undercover
officers. However, this argument found little favour with the Court of
Appeal. The Court in Teixeira recognised that the admissibility of evi-
dence is primarily a matter for regulation by national law (at 540, para.
34) and it is clear from R vLewis that there remains little enthusiasm on
the part of the courts for a more expansive interpretation of
entrapment.
Chris Taylor
Causation and Assisting Drug-abuse Injection
R vKennedy [2005] EWCA Crim 685
An important issue arose in this case regarding the synergy between
unlawful act manslaughter and assisting drug-abuse injection. The focus
was on causation and whether voluntary conduct by the ‘victim’ acted
as a novus actus interveniens. The point that gives rise to difficulty is as to
when it is appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where
that person has been involved in the supply of a Class A controlled drug,
which is then self-administered by the person to whom it is supplied,
and the administration of the drug then causes his death. The appeal
came before the court as a result of a reference by the Criminal Cases
Review Commission under s. 9(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995.
Kennedy was involved in the supply of heroin to V. V shared a room at
a hostel with Andrew Cody (C), where the appellant was also a resident.
Kennedy prepared a ‘hit’ of heroin for the deceased in that room and
gave him the syringe ready for injection. Apparently, V injected himself
and returned the syringe to the appellant. The injection resulted in the
death of V. The appellant was tried at the Central Criminal Court on 26
November 1997. He was convicted of manslaughter and supplying a
Class A controlled drug to another. He was sentenced to five years’
imprisonment on the count of manslaughter and three years’ imprison-
ment, concurrent for the offence of supplying a Class A controlled drug.
His appeal against his conviction for manslaughter was dismissed (see R
v Kennedy [1999] Crim LR 65).
The Journal of Criminal Law
384
To continue reading
Request your trial