English Criminal Law Fails To Deal With the Drug Supplier - Coursework Example

English Criminal Law Fails To Deal With the Drug Supplier Whose Client Dies after Voluntarily Self-Injecting or Ingesting IntroductionAlthough the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 prohibits the dealing and supply of controlled drugs in England, this continues to be a serious problem in the country.1 The misuse of drugs has been attributed to many deaths in England among young drug users.2 The death of people due to drug use has led to questions on the supplier’s criminal liability. Criminal law on homicide requires sufficient casual nexus between the supplier’s act and the death of the user. Therefore, for the supplier to be held liable, it must be shown that the death of the drug user can be attributed to the actions of the supplier.3 It must be proven that, if it was not for the supplier’s act, the death of the user could not have occurred (factual causation). If it is proven that there was factual causation, it must be proven further that the supplier’s act was substantially significant in the death of the user (legal causation). The English courts have faced numerous accusations for the lack of consistency in dealing with drugs homicide.4 The courts have been accused of being in a hurry to convict the drug supplier without prior consideration of the facts. The courts have failed to adequately deal with the fundamental issue of causation,5 as in the R v Kennedy case.6 In the R v Kennedy case, Mr Bosque died later after injecting himself with a class A drug. For this reason, the court charged the drug supplier for constructive manslaughter for his role in supplying the drug to a fellow hostel resident, Mr Bosque. The Plaintiff appealed that the drug was freely and voluntarily administered by Mr Bosque, to whom it was supplied. This paper addresses the English criminal law in the context of a drug supplier whose client dies as a result of using the drug. The paper specifically addresses the debate on the drug user’s conduct by means of the principle of voluntary intervention, and the drug supplier’s unlawful and dangerous act of manslaughter. Issue The unlawful act of manslaughter has been criticised for criminalising actions that were done unintentionally. Some scholars have criticised the English courts for applying the doctrine of causation inconsistently. Cherkassky cites the cases of R v Kennedym,7 R v Dhaliwal,8 and R v Carey,9 as instances where the application of the principle of causation was inconsistent.10 In the case of death due to the unlawful action of another person, the court must first determine factual causation before determining legal causation. According to R v Dalloway,11 the court is required to determine that had the defendant acted lawful, the death would not have occurred. However, legal causation requires a proof that the actions by the defendant were substantial in leading to the death of the victim.12 The main defence against the accusation of causing the death of the victim is to show that a novusactusinterveniens broke the chain of causation.13 This means that in the case that the victim played a major role in their death; the defendant cannot be held liable. The defendant is only held liable where his or her actions supersede the actions of the victim in severity. The R v Kennedy14case is an important highlight of the issues surrounding the application of criminal law. In this case it was determined that the defendant had committed unlawful act, which was punishable under the English law. The court also deemed the defendant unlawful actions to have been substantial in the death of the deceased.15 The court found that Kennedy played a significant role in the death of Mr Bosque, when he supplied him a syringe of heroin. Mr Bosque died minutes later after injecting himself with the drug. Therefore, Kennedy was convicted for constructive manslaughter for his role in supplying the heroin and the syringe which Bosque used. The court determined that supplying the drug was unlawful act. Supplying drugs is against the s. 23 of the Offences against Person Act 1861.16 The case against Kennedy was however dismissed on the reasoning that, Bosque injected the heroin voluntarily. According to the court, Bosque was of sound mind and therefore, could be treated as autonomous and capable of making his own voluntary and informed decision. The House of Lords based its conclusion on the principle of legal causation. The victim was considered to have voluntarily and deliberately injected the heroin, in the full knowledge that it was heroin, and it could lead to death. Although the defendant supplied the drug and the syringe that was used by the victim, the victim used his free will to administer the drug. The fact that the victim had the choice on whether to use the drug or not, but chose to use it broke the chain of causation. Therefore, according to the R v Kennedy case, when the drug user makes a free and voluntary decision, and he self-administer the drug, the drug supplier cannot be held liable in case the drug user dies as a result.17 The R v Kennedy case is in line with similar cases such as R v Dalby18 and R v Dias,19 in which the defendant was not held liable for an unlawful act manslaughter in their role in supplying drugs. In all these cases, the defendants were absolved for constructive manslaughter once it was determined that the victim administered the drug to themselves. In R v Rafferty,20 Rafferty, Taylor and Thomas were charged for murder of a 17 year old Ben Bellamy. Although Rafferty did not participate in the actual murder, he was charged for murder because he assisted Taylor and Thomas in the crime. Rafferty is said to have robbed the boy of his debit card before knocking him down with his elbow. He then fled the scene and left his co-defendants, Thomas and Taylor kicking the boy. The co-defendant later threw him into sea after he became unconscious. Eventually, when Rafferty came back, he found his friends had fled and the boy was dead. Although the boy died from drowning, the defendants were charged for murder due to their role in the death of the boy. Rafferty argued that his departure from the scene meant that he could not be considered in the joint enterprise that led to the boy’s death.21 However, the prosecution saw the case differently. According to the prosecution, his departure from the scene did not mean he was no longer party to Thomas and Taylor’s actions. Based on the R v Le Brun,22 it is not possible for a defendant to break his own chain of causation. On the application of causation test, Rafferty was convicted for unlawful act manslaughter. The small act of elbowing the victim caused a chain of events that led to the eventual death of the victim. From Rafferty’s case, the defendant did not contemplate the murder of the boy, and this was considered to have broken the chain of causation. The reasoning applied in R v Rafferty case is however inconsistent with the one applied in the R v Kennedy case. In the latter case, Mr Bosque’s foreseeable act was deemed to have broken the causation chain. On the contrary, Rafferty’s unforeseeable act is also considered to have broken the chain of causation. Rule The criminal law protects individuals from being held liable for the death of a victim, whereby their actions only contributed minimally to the victim’s death.23 In the case of unexplained death, the principle of voluntary intervention is applied, to determine the role of the victim in their own death. In the case the role of the victim is found to be significant in their death, the court does not look further into the chain of causation. This means that the deliberate and voluntary action of the drug user in administering the drug into themselves protects the drug supplier from liability. According to the English law, one is deemed to have committed an unlawful act manslaughter when they commit unlawful act that can likely harm the second person,24 and the person dies as a result,25 in unforeseen and unintended circumstances.26This form of involuntary manslaughter is also referred to as constructive manslaughter.27 For this law to apply, it has to be shown that the accused committed unlawful act that is punishable under the English law. The court must be satisfied that the actions by the accused contributed substantially towards the death of the other person. The court needs to determine that the accused did not plan or intend to harm the other person. It has to be shown that a sober and a reasonable bystander could not foresee any harm that could result from the actions of the accused on the second person. 28 In R vDawson, two men robbed an elderly petrol station attendant who later suffered from a heart attack and died. The court charged the two men with manslaughter after the expert evidence revealed that the heart attack was induced by shock when the elderly man was held at a gunpoint.29 According to the court, a sober and a reasonable bystander could understand the risks pose by pointing a gun to an elderly man. In drugs cases, the principle of voluntary intervention is highly applied after the R v Kennedy case. The proof self-administration helps distinguish this case from a case where the drug supplier helps the deceased to administer the drug.30 In the case of voluntary intervention, the drug supplier is not liable for the death of the drug user. However, in the case the drug supplier assisted the administration of the drug; he or she is held liable.31 In R v Armstrong, the drug supplier had supplied the deceased heroin and the tools to use to inject the heroin.32 The court, however, ruled that the fact that the deceased injected himself the drug broke the chain of causation by the defendant.33 Analysis According to Jones, the act of supplying drug cannot be considered as a legal causation of the death of a drug user who dies from drug overdose.34 Charging a drug supplier for constructive manslaughter disregards the role of the drug user in making the choice to inject themselves with the drug.35 It is also reasonable to argue that the drug user made a free and deliberate choice to become a customer to the drug supplier. In such a case the drug supplier acted only as a facilitator to the drug user. In R v Kennedy case,36 the decision to absolve Kennedy for any case of unlawful act manslaughter is correct. It would be futile to argue that Kennedy played the main role in the death of his victim. However, when one considers the Rafferty case,37 inconsistence in reasoning can be found. In Rafferty’s case, the “unforeseeability” approach on the side of the defendant is adopted, while the case of Kennedy, foreseeability approach is upheld. The victim in the R v Kennedy38 is deemed to have been aware that death could result from use of heroin. In the contrary, Rafferty is deemed to have been unable to foresee the death of Ben in R v Rafferty case.39 Conclusion The criticism on the inconsistent application of the causation principle on the unlawful act manslaughter is justified. The examination of the Kennedy case40 shows that the action of the victim to inject the drug broke the defendant’s chain of causation. Although it is clear that the victim made a deliberate and an informed decision to inject the drug to himself, it cannot be denied that Kennedy played a significant role in causing the victim’s death. In the Dias case,41 even though the drug supplier did not inject the drug to the victim, it was found that he played a significant role in making it available. However, in Kennedy’s case, the role of the supplier is ignored, and the main focus is put on fact that the drug was self-administered. The case on Rafferty indicates that the chain of causation is only broken when victims’ actions are unforeseeable. It is only when the defendant is unaware of the probable consequences of his action should he be acquitted. This is not the case in R v Kennedy;’42 who was fully aware that the victim would inject themselves and heroin could lead to death. It is certain that Kennedy unlawful act lead to death. In order to adequately deal with unlawful act manslaughter, the English common law need to be consistent. References Cases R v Armstrong [1989] Crim LR 149 R v Carey [2006] EWCA Crim 17 R v Creamer [1966] 1 QB 72, 49 Cr App R 368, [1965] 3 WLR 583, [1965] 3 All ER 257, CCA R v Dalby, [1982] 1 WLR 425 R v Dalloway, (1847) 2 Cox CC 273 R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150, CA R v Dhaliwal [2006] 2 Cr App R 24. R v Dias, [2002] 2 Cr App R 96 R v Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38 R v Le Brun, [1992] QB 61 R v Rafferty [2007] EWCA Crim 1846 Statutes Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 . 23 of the Offences against Person Act 1861 Secondary Sources Cherkassky L ‘Kennedy and Unlawful Act Manslaughter: An Unorthodox Application of the Doctrine of Causation.’ [2008] Journal of Criminal Law 72, no. 5: 387-408. Chow Priscilla ‘Drugs Homicide: When will the drug supplier be held criminally liable, and should the law in this area be reformed?’ The Student: Journal of Law Jones T H ‘Causation, homicide and the supply of drugs’ [2006] Legal Studies, 26. Read More