English Criminal Law Nowadays - Essay Example

English Criminal Law English Criminal Law Introduction The death of human beings, under any given constitutionis considered to be a fundamental issue that every legal institution treats with caution, independent knowledge and severity. There are many causes of death, and the fact that every life has to die, the legal institutions investigate the cause of death and respond accordingly. However, there are some causes of death that are questionable and doubtable. Death as a result of old age, long-term illness and sometimes accidents are normal death that human beings undergo through, and people tend to accept such deaths. It has been confirmed that some causes of death are worrying and threatening. These are deaths associated with murder, excessive use of illegal drugs, and deaths that cannot be medically proven on their causes. Such deaths not only cause societal attention, but also triggers alarm to the legal sector because they are weird and unexpected. In most countries, dealing and supplying of addictive substances that are controlled is considered illegal. According to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971,1 the England court dismissed the act of dealing and supplying of controlled substances due to the increased death rates that was observed in the country. It is evident that in situations where an individual dies due to use of illegal drugs and controlled addictive substances, the question of the individual responsible for supplying the drugs comes forth.2 However, it is considered unlawful to sentence the individual supplying the drugs, and according to the constitutions of several countries, such suppliers are not directly connected to the death. According to the Act,3 individuals who supply or deal with illegal drugs that consequently cause death to the users may be held criminally liable for the situation. There are different assumptions that are undertaken by the legal institutions before relying on the evidences offered regarding deaths resulting from misuse of drugs. According to the drug supplier’s act, one may be considered liable for a death in case it is confirmed to be a factual causation. On the other hand, in situations where the drug supplier’s act involves an operating and considerable cause of death of the users, then a legal causation arises. This material aims at investigating situations when the suppliers of controlled drugs may be held reliable for deaths of users who misuse the drugs. This follows the realization that the English criminal law fails to deal with the drug supplier whose client dies after voluntarily self-injecting or ingesting in the drugs in a consistent and irresponsible manner. To arrive at an evidence-based conclusion regarding the issue, the IRAC method of analyzing legal cases will be applied.4 This involves statement of the issue, the rule following the issue according to judicial court stated, analysis of the issue integrated and lastly the conclusion that can be drawn from the social to legal perspectives. Issue The English criminal law has been observed to be assuming the fact that the suppliers of drugs and addictive substances that consequently cause death to the clients are responsible and reliable for the consequential act.5 Studies have revealed that the number of deaths resulting from misuse of controlled drugs has been increasing over several decades irrespective of the government’s plead to citizen to quit using such drugs. 6The users get addicted to the injecting and ingesting controlled drugs due to various reasons, and end up finding life hard without the effect of the drugs. It reaches a point when they find the effect of the drugs reduce with time, and are forced to elevate the ratio of consumption. This proscribed use of illegal drugs may get worse to an extent that the user’s life is under severe risk, and at times the users end up dying. Most constitutions in different country not only find it as the responsibility of the user to some dangerous outcomes, but consider the suppliers to be directly liable for the deaths. When a client dies due to misuse of illegal or controlled drugs, the relatives, friends and the legal bodies such as police take the responsibility of investigating the cause of death. Once it is medically confirmed that the death was as a result of excessive, consistence and irresponsible use of drugs, they may go an extra-mile in investigating the party that had been involved in supplying the drugs to the deceased. One of the reasons for involving the supplier is to determine whether the products supplier by the party are safe for human consumption or are toxic. In situations where the products from the supplier are verified to be hazardous to human health,7 the judicial systems are involved. The ruling of the court is dependent on various codes and legal acts, and in such a situation,8 the court may use the Drug Supplier’s Act to determine whether the supplier is guilty of the offence or not. Rule The English Criminal Law is understood to be a legal body of law that deals with various crimes and the outcomes of the crimes. In England, the body is perceived to be corresponding to the civil law of England and Wales,9 and the body is responsible for issues that affect the community negatively. The major role of the body is to deal with convicted offenders, and is helped by different organizations and individuals whose ambitions and mission is to reduce and prevent crimes. According to some studies, there has been a long-debated criticism that English courts have ignored the general principle of the criminal law.10 This followed the observation that the courts have been reluctant in dealing with the fundamental issue of causation to the satisfaction of the victims and the community in general. This significantly contributes to a progression of incompatible and potentially flawed verdicts in the judicial courts, and some individuals describe this as miscarriage of the judiciary, and negligence to the human rights and freedoms. Analysis According to legal experts and advocates of human rights in England and Wales, the criminal law has been confirmed to be assuming the reality of free will. This implies that in situations where an individual who is of sound mind and is normal does something willingly and in understanding the consequences, voluntarily does the act, the consequences of the actions should not be directed to other parties11,12, an indication that it is the individual’s own responsibility to get involved in an action that may cause harm on their own accord. It is considered to be a scenario of uncertainty imposing or holding the suppliers of drugs which afterwards causes the client to die a criminal liability. In most cases, when such an event occurs such that one dies as a result of using prescribed drugs irresponsibly, the defendant or the supplier is not held liable for the manslaughter. Most defendants claim that the supply of drug is not a crime,13 and is not meant to cause any harm to the client.14 This implies that it is due to the client’s use of the drugs in a manner that is not responsible or quantities that are not recommended that cause death, and thus the deceased needs to be responsible for own actions. Law specialists also support that it is the deceased’s action of injecting the drugs or ingesting the drugs that causes death and not the supplier’s act of issuing the drugs.15 Logically, it is true that the deceased directed causes own death, because the supplier does not directly inject the deceased with the drugs. On contrast, one may present the argument that, were it not for the supplier offering the drug, the deceased could not have died. The fact that one voluntarily and willingly poisons oneself suffices to argue that it is not the obligation of the drug suppliers to follow up the consequences of the client’s irresponsible use of the drugs. In cases where the defendant or supplier prepares the syringe and gives the deceased to use in administering the drug, the defendant can be considered reliable for the death because he/she might have prepared wrong dosage, which consequently causes death.16 It becomes worse to the supplier if he/she plays a role in injecting controlled drug to an individual who subsequently dies as a result of the use of the substance. The major question that the legal sector asks is whether supply of drugs that is not involving direct involvement of the supplier in injection or ingestion is an act of causative.17 It can be argued that it can be an act of causative in situations where the defendant or the supplier directly plays a role in administering the drug to the deceased. From one perspective, it can be confirmed that the judicial system of England and Wales are not ignoring the human rights or aborting judiciary when they free a supplier who is not directly involved in injecting or administering illegal or toxic substances to the deceased. According to legal experts, when an individual supplies drugs that are considered to be illegal or controlled to another party, who voluntarily self-injects that substance and eventually dies, the supplier will not be guilty. However, this is on condition that the deceased is a normal individual, and an informed adult who understands the consequences of using the drugs.18 This action is sometimes perceived to be an unlawful act of manslaughter, and depending by the evidences that are presented to the court, the supplier maybe held reliable for vulgar negligence homicide.19 There are various requirements that need to be met for one to be convicted of manslaughter in situations where one supplies a drug and the client willingly self-injects, and afterwards dies. There are instances with inclusion of gross that are sufficient to be termed as criminal and breach that causes death of the client.20 Research has revealed that most of the controlled substances have the capability of contributing significantly or directly causing dangerous health predicaments, or sometimes death.21 This arguments leads to the assumptions that are made on the aspect of the legal/logical consistency, that irrespective of the evidences that may be offered to confirm that the suppliers of drugs that causes death to clients are guilty, there is need to review the issue of social logistics. From the social logistic viewpoint, however, it is advised for the drug dealers or suppliers to report any situation where the client becomes ill as a result of the drugs that they supply to them without taking into consideration what the law may perceive of the action.22 The Drug Supplier Act tries to protect the suppliers who, though unlawfully, supply drugs to individuals who are adults, and with sound mental status. It is considered unlawful for any individual to supply drugs to clients who are mentally unstable or children. In case a defendant is confirmed to have supplied drugs to a child or abnormal person who eventually dies as a result of using the drugs, then he/she is convicted of manslaughter. Conclusion Supply, sale or use of controlled substances is unlawful in any jurisdiction. Various parties are involved in ensuring there is safety to all citizens irrespective of their class, age, social status, economic status of health status. The court is perceived to be the core organ that needs to deal with issues related to criminal law, in the sense that the body does not only rely on logistics, but also on the legal Acts that are aimed at controlling human behavior.23 Considering the issue of whether the suppliers of drugs which cause death to users who voluntarily inject or ingest the drugs, I find it to be own responsibility of the deceased. Provided the deceased was mentally stable and an informed adult,24 then the supplier is not involved, and should not be considered as a contributor to the manslaughter. However, in occasions where the supplier syringes the drug and offers it to the client, he/she is directly involved in the killing and can be considered liable for the death. Thus, the English criminal law is not failing, but rather offering justice to all. References Cases R v Cheshire [1991] 3 All ER 670 (CA) R v Kimsey [1996] Crim LR 35 (CA) R v Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38. R v Dias [2002] Crim LR 490 R v Finlay [2003] EWCA Crim 3868 R v Roberts [1971] EWCA Crim 4 R v Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650, paragraph 34 R v Khan [1998] Crim. L.R. 830 CA (Crim Div) Legislation Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 Secondary Sources Alan Reed, Causation and Assisting Drug-abuse Injection. Journal of Criminal Law, Volume 69, Number 5. 2005. pages 384-389 Dennis J. Baker, Constitutionalizing the Harm Principle (2008) 27 Crim Just Ethics 3 Dennis J. Baker, Omissions Liability for Homicide Offences: Reconciling R v Kennedy with R v Evans 2010, 74 J. Crim. L. 310. Accessible at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2063709 Dennis J. Baker, Omissions Liability for Homicide Offences: Reconciling R v Kennedy with R v Evans (2010), 74 J. Crim. L. 310. Accessible at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2063709 Environment Agency (formerly National Rivers Authority) v Empress Car Co. (Abertillery) Ltd. (1993) 2 WLR 350. Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law (Steven & Sons: London, 1983), 2nd Edition, page 391.  Reproduced in David Ormerod and Rudi Fortson, Drug Suppliers as Manslaughterers (Again) (2005), Crim LR 819, 822. Glenys Williams, Gross Negligence Manslaughter and Duty of Care in ‘Drugs’ Cases: R v Evans (2009), Crim. L.R. 631. Glenys Williams, Gross Negligence Manslaughter and Duty of Care in ‘Drugs’ Cases: R v Evans (2009), Crim. L.R. 631. Ibid. Jonathan Rogers. Death Drugs and Duties. Archbold News. 2009. Issue 6. Paul Duke, Drug Dealers and Fatal Self-Administration in Australia: A Cause for Concern.  (Queensland Law Student Review, Volume 1, Number 1. 2008). Pages 14-24. Timothy H. Jones, Causation, homicide and the supply of drugs, Legal Studies, Volume 26, Number 2, June 2006. pages 139-154. Read More