The defendant appealed a conviction for manslaughter and assault under the 1861 Act. He held a belt around a friend’s arm whilst the friend injected heroin into his own vein. The friend later died from the overdose. He said the use of the tourniquet was not itself unlawful.
Held: The application of the tourniquet was part and parcel of the injection, which was itself unlawful. The tourniquet could not be looked at in isolation, its purpose was to raise a vein to assist the fatal injection. Nothing in Dias was inconsistent with that. Rose VP focused on whether the defendant’s conduct was as principal or as a secondary party. The application of the tourniquet should not be considered in isolation: ‘It is artificial and unreal to separate the tourniquet from the injection. The purpose and effect of the tourniquet, plainly, was to raise a vein in which the deceased could insert the syringe. Accordingly, by applying and holding the tourniquet, the defendant was playing a part in the mechanics of the injection which caused death. It is therefore, as it seems to us, immaterial whether the deceased was committing a criminal offence. . . A fortiori, as it seems to us, a person who actively participates in the injection process commits the actus reus and can have no answer to an offence under section 23 or a charge of manslaughter if death results. Once the [defendant] is categorised as such a participant, it being common ground that death resulted from the injection, no question arises in relation to causation.’
Judges:
Rose LJ, Gross, Pitchers JJ
Citations:
Times 20-Mar-2003, Gazette 15-May-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1374
Links:
Statutes:
Offences against the Persons Act 1861 23
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Doubted – Regina v Kennedy CACD 31-Jul-1998
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter having handed a loaded a syringe with heroin and handed it to a friend who injected himself, and later died.
Held: The defendant had gone beyond the minimum necessary for criminal liability. All it . .
Cited – Regina v Dias CACD 13-Dec-2001
The defendant appealed against his conviction for manslaughter. Both the deceased and the defendant had injected themselves with syringes prepared by D. The judge directed the jury that the self-injection of the heroin by the deceased was an . .
Cited by:
Cited – Kennedy v Regina CACD 17-Mar-2005
The court considered when it was 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Kennedy HL 17-Oct-2007
The defendant had been convicted of manslaughter. He had supplied a class A drug to a friend who then died taking it. The House was asked ‘When is it appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180387