This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

R v Kennedy [2007] 3 WLR 612; [2007] UKHL 38; [2008] Crim LR 222

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 12/02/2024 07:08

Judgement for the case R v Kennedy

KEY POINTS

  • In a homicide, the appellant was accused of manslaughter for preparing a syringe of heroin and delivering it to the deceased, who promptly injected himself.

  • The fatal consequences of the heroin injection raise the critical question of the appellant's guilt in causing the death. 

  • A legal inquiry emerged, and explored whether the act of self-injection by the deceased could be considered a break in the chain of causation, which added complexity to the case. 

  • The proceedings were governed by the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict c 100), specifically Section 23, as the justice system examined the intricate details of this legally significant event.

FACTS

  • Simon Kennedy (‘Appellant’), in a case involving the preparation and distribution of heroin, provided a syringe to Marco Bosque and Andrew Cody (‘B’), who promptly injected himself and returned the syringe to the Appellant before the latter left the room.

  • Following the injection, B tragically succumbed to its effects, leading to charges against the Appellant for supplying a class A drug and manslaughter. 

  • The Appellant was convicted on both counts.

  • In the appeal against the manslaughter conviction, the Court of Appeal focused on whether the appellant could be deemed jointly responsible for B's self-administered act leading to death. 

  • The court upheld the jury's consideration, asserting that the instructions provided were adequate, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

    • However, the Criminal Cases Review Commission later referred the case to the Court of Appeal, citing concerns about the original reasoning. 

  • The subsequent ruling acknowledged that the jury could find the appellant and B jointly involved in administering the heroin, constituting an offence under Section 23 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

    • Therefore, the Appellant's conviction for manslaughter stood.

JUDGEMENT

  • It was held on appeal by the appellant, and the appeal was allowed.

    • The judgment recognised that informed adults of sound minds are considered autonomous beings capable of making independent decisions.

    • In this case, after the appellant had supplied the heroin and prepared the syringe, the deceased, being aware of his actions, exercised his autonomy by choosing whether to inject himself.

    • Therefore, it was concluded that the appellant could not be deemed the cause of the drug administration to the deceased.

  • In assessing the offence of unlawfully administering a drug under section 23 of the 1861 Act, the crucial factor was not whether the appellant facilitated or contributed to the drug's administration but whether he had administered it.

  • Given that the deceased had made a voluntary and informed decision to self-administer the drug, it was established that the appellant had not jointly administered the drug with him.

  • Consequently, the appellant had not committed an offence under section 23 of the 1861 Act. As a result, since the appellant had not engaged in any criminal act significantly contributing to the deceased's death, the conviction for manslaughter was quashed.

COMMENTARY

  • Simon Kennedy, the appellant, faced charges for providing a syringe used in a fatal heroin self-administration by Andrew Cody ('B'). Initially convicted of supplying a class A drug and manslaughter, the appeal focused on joint responsibility.

  • The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, but the case was later reviewed due to concerns. In the subsequent ruling, it was recognised that the appellant and B could be jointly involved in drug administration.

  • However, a further appeal emphasised the autonomy of informed adults. The judgment clarified that the appellant didn't cause B's drug administration, leading to the quashing of the manslaughter conviction under Section 23.

ORIGINAL ANALYSIS

  • HL conclusion to Kennedy:

    • One guy prepares a syringe of heroin and passes it to his friend, who injects it and dies.

    • Unlawful and Dangerous Act was basis of appeal.

  • Dismissed (i.e. Kennedy NOT GUILTY OF MANSLAUGHTER) because preparing a syringe did not “cause” Victim to take the drug. Victim was an independent individual, making a “free, deliberate and informed” decision.

  • The decision of CA in Finlay, which convicted a person in identical situation as Kennedy is overruled.

  • The Crown tried to claim that “administer” should be interpreted broadly and that Kennedy could be said to have “administered the drug”. This was rejected because the victim injected himself.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on R v Kennedy

Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

Criminal LawHomicide Notes (20 pages)
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Criminal Law Notes
1,072 total pages
662 purchased

Criminal Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...