Court of Appeal
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2009.73.6.597 |
| Published date | 01 December 2009 |
| Date | 01 December 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Supply of Drugs: Duty of Care
R vEvans [2009] EWCA Crim 650
Keywords Gross negligence manslaughter; Duty of care; Liability for
omission; Creation of danger principle
In April 2008, the appellant, Gemma Evans, and her mother, Andrea
Townsend, were convicted of the gross negligence manslaughter of the
appellant’s 16-year-old half sister, Carly Townsend, who died following
a heroin overdose at Andrea Townsend’s home during the night of 2
May 2007 and the following morning. All three had a history of heroin
addiction; the appellant had herself been previously saved by para-
medics following an overdose, and Carly was newly released on licence
to her mother’s care following a six-month detention and training
order.
Although disputed, the evidence submitted was that the appellant
had acted as an intermediary in buying the heroin from a local dealer,
which she then gave to Carly. That same evening, in her mother’s house,
and following self-injection of the drugs, Carly developed and com-
plained of symptoms consistent with an overdose. She lost colour, had a
high temperature, her lips turned blue and she was unable to respond to
her family. However, fearing that both they and Carly would be in
trouble if they sought help, the appellant and her mother simply put
Carly to bed in the hope that she would sleep it off. Indeed, after staying
with her for a couple of hours, it appeared that although she was in a
‘gouch’ (a state of unconsciousness familiar to habitual drug users),
Carly’s colour had returned, she looked much better and, as she was by
then snoring, appeared to be sleep. Andrea Townsend and the appellant
slept in the same room as Carly that night, but she was found to be dead
the next morning.
At trial, the prosecution claimed that Gemma Evans owed Carly a
duty of care either on the basis of the sibling relationship or, alternat-
ively, that she had assumed responsibility for Carly during the interval
between taking the drugs and Carly’s death. As to the first claim, the trial
judge found that this particular blood relationship did not provide a basis
for the existence of a duty of care, and as to the second, that nothing
Gemma Evans had done amounted to an assumption of responsibility
for Carly which would give rise to a duty of care (citing R v Stone and
Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354 and R vRuffell [2003] EWCA Crim 122).
However, the trial judge went on to direct the jury that if they were sure
that the defendant had acted as an intermediary in the provision of the
drugs to her sister, then that was ‘a matter which in law is capable of
giving rise to a duty of care’. He cited R vKhan and Khan [1998] Crim LR
830 and R vSinclair, Johnson and Smith [1998] EWCA Crim 2950 as
authorities for this proposition.
457The Journal of Criminal Law (2009) 73 JCL 457–470
doi:10.1350/jcla.2009.73.6.597
To continue reading
Request your trial