- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
R v. Kennedy
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant and two other residents, the Deceased and a Witness, were living in a hostel. On 10 September 1996 the Deceased asked the Appellant for “something to make him sleep.” The Appellant prepared a syringe containing heroin and handed it to the Deceased, who voluntarily injected himself. Shortly thereafter the Deceased stopped breathing and later died in hospital; the medical cause of death was aspiration of gastric contents while acutely intoxicated by opiates and alcohol.
The Appellant was tried in the Central Criminal Court on two counts: (1) manslaughter and (2) supplying a Class A drug contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was convicted on 26 November 1997 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment (three years concurrent on the supply count). His first appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on 31 July 1998. The Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back; the Court of Appeal again dismissed the appeal on 17 March 2005. The present judgment is the House of Lords’ determination of the Appellant’s further appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, in circumstances where a fully informed and responsible adult voluntarily self-injects a drug, the supplier can be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.
- Whether preparing and handing a loaded syringe constitutes “administering” or “causing to be administered” a noxious substance under section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
- Whether the voluntary and informed act of the Deceased breaks the chain of causation for the purposes of unlawful act manslaughter.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Deceased’s voluntary, informed self-injection constituted a novus actus interveniens, breaking any causal link between supply and death.
- The Appellant neither “administered” nor “caused to be administered” a noxious thing as required by section 23 of the 1861 Act.
- Earlier authorities treating supply as sufficient for manslaughter were based on misapplication of causation principles.
Respondent's (Crown’s) Arguments
- The Appellant’s preparation of the syringe and handing it “for immediate injection” amounted to administering the drug.
- Even if not direct administration, the Appellant at least caused the drug to be administered or taken.
- Reliance was placed on R v Rogers to argue that active facilitation is indistinguishable from administration.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Franklin (1883) 15 Cox CC 163 | Unlawful act must itself be a crime for manslaughter liability. | Cited as element (2) of unlawful act manslaughter framework. |
| R v Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981 | Reinforces that the foundational act must be criminal. | Referenced in the same context as Franklin. |
| R v Cato [1976] 1 WLR 110 | Unlawful act must be a significant cause of death. | Used to define causation requirement. |
| R v Dalby [1982] 1 WLR 425 | Supplying drugs alone cannot ground manslaughter if self-administration intervenes. | Approved and followed. |
| R v Dias [2002] 2 Cr App R 96 | Self-injection by victim is not an unlawful act; breaks causation. | Cited to show Deceased committed no offence, so Appellant cannot be secondary party. |
| R v Rogers [2003] 1 WLR 1374 | Treated facilitation (tourniquet) as administration. | Declared “wrongly decided” and overruled. |
| Environment Agency v Empress Car Co [1999] 2 AC 22 | Context-specific approach to causation. | Distinguished; said not applicable to s 23 cases. |
| R v Finlay [2003] EWCA Crim 3868 | Applied Empress Car reasoning to drug cases. | Held to be wrongly decided. |
| R v Latif [1996] 1 WLR 104 | Endorsed academic view that voluntary informed action breaks causation. | Quoted to underscore personal autonomy principle. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Committee began by reaffirming that unlawful act manslaughter requires: (1) an unlawful act, (2) that the act is criminal, and (3) that it is a significant cause of death. While the Appellant unquestionably committed the crime of supplying heroin, that act could not physically harm the Deceased unless the drug was subsequently taken.
Both sides accepted that any relevant unlawful act had to be located in section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which creates three offences: administering, causing to be administered, and causing to be taken. The court analysed each:
- Administering: requires the defendant to introduce the substance into the victim’s body (e.g., direct injection). Here, the Deceased performed the injection himself; therefore, the Appellant did not administer.
- Causing to be administered / taken: because the Deceased was a fully informed adult acting voluntarily, the law of causation treats his choice as a new intervening act. On established principles of personal autonomy, the Appellant cannot be said to have caused the administration.
The Committee rejected the Crown’s reliance on R v Rogers and the Court of Appeal’s view that the injection was a “joint activity.” The crucial question is whether the injection resulted from the victim’s voluntary, informed decision. Because it did, earlier authorities stretching section 23 to cover mere facilitation were wrong.
Accordingly, the Appellant’s conduct did not satisfy any limb of section 23, leaving no unlawful act capable of supporting a manslaughter conviction. The certified question—whether a supplier can be guilty of manslaughter when a competent adult self-injects—was answered: “In the case of a fully-informed and responsible adult, never.”
Holding and Implications
Holding: APPEAL ALLOWED; CONVICTION FOR MANSLAUGHTER QUASHED. The Appellant was awarded costs out of central funds.
Implications: The judgment establishes that, where a competent adult voluntarily self-administers a drug, the supplier cannot be liable for unlawful act manslaughter on the basis of “administering” or “causing to administer” under section 23 OAPA 1861. The decision overrules R v Rogers and clarifies that personal autonomy breaks the causal chain. Prosecutors must now identify a distinct unlawful act—beyond supply—that directly causes death when framing manslaughter charges in drug-related fatalities.
Alert