R v Khan (Rungzabe)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 March 1998 |
| Date | 18 March 1998 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Before Lord Justice Swinton Thomas, Mr Justice Rix and Mr Justice Astill
Crime - manslaughter by omission - breach of duty and gross negligence required
Manslaughter by omission was an example of manslaughter arising out of a breach of duty coupled with gross negligence and was not a freestanding category of manslaughter on its own.
Consequently in such cases the trial judge should make a ruling as to whether the facts were capable of giving rise to the relevant duty and the jury should be directed in relation to that issue.
The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, so held in a reserved judgment allowing the appeal of Rungzabe Khan against his conviction on July 1, 1997 at Birmingham Crown Court (Mr Justice McKinnon and a jury) of manslaughter, charged in the indictment as murder, and supplying a controlled class A drug to another, possessing a controlled class A drug with intent, to which pleas of not guilty were entered, and conspiracy to prevent burial of a dead body to which a guilty plea was entered.
Mr Babir Singh, assigned by the Registrar for Criminal Appeals, for the appellant; Mr John Mitting, QC, for the prosecution.
LORD JUSTICE SWINTON THOMAS said the appeal related solely to the jury's findings that the appellant was guilty of manslaughter. The facts were unusual.
The appellant sold heroin to a prostitute Lucy Birchell, aged 15. It was the first time she had tried heroin and the appellant gave her a dose which was twice the amount which would be taken by an experienced heroin user.
The girl went into a coma on the appellant's premises. Later the appellant left and several hours later she died alone.
It was established that if medical assistance had been requested at any time before Lucy Birchell's death she would have been saved. Originally the appellant was indicted on a charge of murder but following conclusion of the evidence called by the crown the trial judge withdrew that charge as no reasonable jury could conclude the appellant had the requisite intent for murder.
The prosecution did not put their case on the basis of manslaughter by gross negligence and the trial judge ruled that it was not manslaughter as the result of an unlawful or dangerous act on the authority of R v DalbyWLR([1982] 1 WLR 425) as explained by R v GoodfellowUNK ((1986) 83 Cr App R 23). The trial judge did not have Attorney-General's Reference No 3 of 1994WLR(...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Willoughby (Keith Calverley)
... ... That is the way in which this Court interpreted that speech in R v Khan & Khan [1998] Crim LR 83 (transcript 18th March 1998) followed in R v Sinclair 148 New Law Journal 1353 (transcript 21st August 1998). In R v ... ...
-
R v Gemma Evans
... ... Dalby [1982] 1WLR 425 , R v Willoughby [2005] CLR 389 , R v Wacker [2003] 1CAR 329 , R v Kennedy (No 2) [2008] 1 AC 169 , as well as R v Khan and Khan , unreported, 18 March 1998 and R v Sinclair, Johnson and Smith [1998] EWCA Crim 2590 ... It was further contended that the practice by ... ...