Involuntary Manslaughter and Assisting Drug-Abuse Injection
![handle is hein.journals/jcriml67 and id is 461 raw text is: Involuntary Manslaughter and
Assisting Drug-Abuse Injection
Alan Reed*
Abstract This article examines extant law on drug-taking and unlawful
act manslaughter. It considers the interrelationship with general principles
on causation. It concludes that precedential authorities are inconsistent:
urgent clarification is required by the House of Lords.
Drug abuse is a blight on our society. The increasing number of deaths
effected through voluntary self-injection of drugs is a matter of huge
regret. A difficult problem, however, has emerged in relation to those
individuals vho assist drug-abuse injection by another, consequently
leading to death. This 'assistance' may take a variety of forms en-
compassing: acquiring the illegal substances; preparation of the syringe;
holding a belt as a tourniquet; or actually injecting the substance di-
rectly. At issue, in a variety of conflicting precedents at appellate level,
has been liability of the individual who delivers assistance for the
offence of involuntary manslaughter. The latest in this line of cases is R
v Rogers.'
The facts in Rogers present a grim picture. The question that arose for
determination was whether an individual, who held a tourniquet on the
arm of a drug abuser who injected himself with heroin, was playing a
part in the mechanics of the injection which caused the death of the
drug abuser. If answered in the affirmative then the helper was accord-
ingly guilty of an offence under s. 23 of the Offences Against the Person
Act 1861, and of involuntary manslaughter. According to the appellant,
he had physically assisted the deceased by holding a belt round his arm
as a tourniquet while the deceased injected himself. The victim collapsed
with cardiac arrest and died eight days later.
Interestingly, the trial judge ruled that the application of the tourni-
quet was 'part and parcel of the unlawful act of administering heroin',
that there was no difference from holding the end of the syringe while
the deceased pressed the plunger and that, therefore, there was no
defence to either of the counts faced by the appellant. On behalf of
Rogers it was contended that the judge's ruling was wrong because there
was no unlawful act by the appellant for the purposes of either s. 23 or
manslaughter. It was argued that applying a tourniquet was not an
unlawful act by the appellant, and the deceased's injection of himself
was not an unlawful act. The appellant had merely facilitated an act
which was not unlawful. Reliance was placed on the earlier decision in
R v Dias,' discussed below, which was reported after the trial judge gave
his ruling and in which R v Kennedy3 was distinguished. In Kennedy it was
* Professor of Law, Sunderland Business School
1 [20031 EWCA Crim 945, [20031 1 WLR 1374.
2 12003] 2 Cr App R 96.
3 [19991 Crim LR 65.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/jcriml67&div=63&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Involuntary Manslaughter and Assisting Drug-Abuse Injection
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most