Crime XXXXXXXV - Gross Negligence Manslaughter VII
In
R v Khan (1993) the defendants were drug dealers who supplied a girl with a
class A drug (heroin). It soon became apparent that the girl needed medical
attention but the defendants left her by herself and her body was found the
next day dumped in a waste disposal ground.
As
per the decision in R v Dias (2002) the defendants could not be found guilty of
constructive manslaughter or unlawful act manslaughter and this includes
situations where the dealer has prepared the solution and handed in to the
victim in a syringe if the victim is “a fully informed and responsible adult”.
Here
the victim was a minor (15 years old) and did not fall into the category of or
cannot be classed as a fully informed and responsible adult.
The
defendants were not convicted for constructive manslaughter or unlawful act
manslaughter but were found guilty instead, of involuntary manslaughter or
reckless manslaughter by way of omission i.e. for failing to comply with a duty
imposed by either common law or statute or for failing to act in the manner a
reasonable man would have in the given circumstances.
Under
manslaughter the prosecution has some discretion to go for the types of
manslaughter that are available to obtain a conviction but it is important that
the prosecution gets it right the first time because the courts might not allow
or might be reluctant to allow a retrial.
The
decision in R v Khan (1993) was followed in R v Evans (2009) and once again
reaffirms the fact that a defendant can be convicted of gross negligence
manslaughter if he or she fails to act in the manner that is required of him or
her.
In
R v Evans (2009) the defendant supplied drugs to her sister (heroin (a class A
drug) and failed to called for assistance when her sister started to display
symptoms of overdose and the sister died as a result.
Despite
the fact that the victim injected herself with the solution the court applied
the duty of care principle i.e. duty, breach and causation and decided that the
defendant owed the victim a duty of care and breached the duty of care when she
did not call for assistance when her sister went into overdose and that breach
of duty had caused the death.
The
fourth and fifth limbs i.e. that the defendant’s conduct must be so bad that a
crime could be inferred and the element of badness or criminality i.e. the
conduct of the defendant is so bad that it is not sufficient that a mere fine
is imposed or the victim is compensated and amounts to a crime against the
state, can sometimes be consolidated into a single element especially in
instances where criminal behavior is blatant or obvious.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment