Chain of causation problem question. The given case is concerned with the law on homicide in English Criminal Law. Albert is likely to be accused of three different offences; the death of Bert amounting to involuntary manslaughter, the injuries suffered

Involuntary manslaughter is of three types: Constructive manslaughter, Gross Negligence manslaughter, and Reckless Manslaughter. Of these reckless manslaughter is applicable to a limited number of cases and generally does not appear in courts. Given the circumstance of this case the prosecution is most likely to press for constructive manslaughter. This is because under gross negligence manslaughter a duty of care needs to be established between the defendant and the deceased which would be hard to establish because Albert is a supplier of drugs and is not involved in its administration. In order to prove constructive manslaughter it needs to be established that a criminal unlawful act caused the death. This point was established in the case of Franklin. This cannot be a crime of omissions as seen in the case of Lowe. It further needs to be established that there was an underlying act that was intrinsically criminal, illustrated in the case of Andrews. This criminal act also needs to be dangerous. In Church the dangerousness element was defined as "The unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise and must subject the other person to at least the risk of some harm resulting there from albeit not serious harm." It also needs to be established that there was a causal link between the act and the consequence, thereby preventing a break in the chain of causation, a point that was clarified in Mitchell. The facts of this case are similar to the case of Dalbywhere the defendant supplied the victim with illegal drugs. In Dably the courts found the defendant not guilty of manslaughter, however the reason for doing so (now stands overruled) was that the act was not aimed at the victim. While Albert satisfies the unlawful act and dangerousness elements, prosecution is likely to fail in establishing causation between the supply of drugs and death. Mitchell’s justification of Dably can be applied to this case where there is an absence of causal nexus between the defendant’s act of supply and victims subsequent death. The victim was aware of the consequences of injecting drugs. This breaks the chain of causation. It is therefore unlikely that Albert will be convicted for any criminal offence with respect to the death of Bert. He might however be charged under the Misuse of drugs act 1971 (c.38) which prevents the supply of articles for administering or preparation of a controlled drug.

With respect to the seizure and injuries suffered by Carol Albert is likely to be prosecuted under s.47 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 under the guidelines established by the Crown Prosecution Service. The actus reus for a s47 OAPA 1861 offence is made out when a person assaults another causing actual bodily harm calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim (Donovan). On the surface it appears that the actus reus is satisfied in the given case (T v DPP). However, in trying to establish actus reus we need to look at causation and take into consideration the ruling in the case of Kennedy (No.2). When the Kennedy case reached the House of Lords the question of joint responsibility was brought up. The House of Lords ruled that the drug had been self administered, not jointly administered and therefore this doctrine was inapplicable. The House of Lords said "In the case of a fully informed and responsible adult, never". The mens rea for such an offence is intention to cause actual bodily harm or to do so recklessly (applying the Cunningham test).While it can clearly be said that Albert did not possess intention it can be argued that he was reckless in providing the drugs -  he should have foreseen the risk. The lack of actus reus would prevent him from being prosecuted under s47 OAPA 1861. The courts might then consider the lesser offence of battery. In the offence of battery the mens rea is similar to that of s47 OAPA 1861, but the threshold for actus reud is lower, mere infliction of violence is adequate. However, the break in the chain of causation mentioned above would apply to this situation as well. Therefore, it will not be possible to convict Albert of Battery. The court may even consider the lower offence of Assault. The actus reus of assault is causing the victim to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence; the mens rea being the same as that for battery. The victim in this case voluntarily consumed the drugs and therefore was not subject to immediate or unlawful violence, preventing liability from assault arising out of this offence.

Regarding the death of Diane, as per the murder laws it is unlikely that Albert will be charged with murder because of a lack of mens rea. He is therefore most likely to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. More specifically gross negligence manslaughter. As mentioned in the case regarding Bert, Albert is unlikely to be charged with constructive manslaughter because of the break in the chain of causation due to the informed decision of Diane and also because omissions in themselves do not amount to constructive manslaughter. However, there might arise an additional duty of care since he is more than a mere acquaintance of Diane and also since he spends the night at her house and was witness to her predicament. I shall explore here in more detail the law on gross negligence manslaughter. Gross Negligence manslaughter is where there was a duty of care owed to the victim, the duty of care was breached and death occurred and the breach of duty needs to be gross (serious).

Firstly it needs to be established whether Albert owed a duty of care to Diane. This part of the law is contentious as seen in the case of Khan& Khan. It is for the jury to decide this question; Lord Mackay called it a supreme jury decision. There are therefore no set criteria as to whether a drug dealer owes a duty of care to the victim. In Khan & Khan there was held to be no duty whereas in Sinclair there was a duty of care although Rose LJ said Sinclair owed a duty to the victim since they “were like brothers”. This establishes a very high bar for establishing a duty of care. From the facts of the given case, it is unclear as to how close the relationship between Albert and Diane was. It can be argued that because Albert spend the night with her he knew her well enough for there to be a duty of care. By failing to call for medical help Albert failed in his duty to Diane which resulted in her death. Therefore it remains to be answered whether the negligence was gross. In Bateman Hewart CJ said that the negligence should go beyond a mere matter of compensation between parties. It should show such disregard to the life and safety of another to amount to a crime. This is a question for the jury to consider, and they are highly likely to say it was. Applying Lord Mackays statement in Adamako whereby he says that having regard to the risk of death the conduct of the criminal was so bad in all circumstances as to amount to criminal act or omission, it is highly likely the Jury will find that the negligence was gross. Therefore the most likely outcome is that Albert will be convicted for the involuntary manslaughter of Diane.

I shall now examine the tensions within the law pertaining to drug dealers and homicide. The law on manslaughter with respect to drug dealers has been often criticised, and this criticism is seen in the three scenarios illustrated in the given problem. It requires a duty of care between the drug dealer and the victim for there to be any form of criminal liability on the drug dealer. Judges have always been eager to prosecute drug dealers to act as a deterrent, however have failed to do so unless a duty of care is established. Catherine Elliot and Claire de Than (2006) question whether criminal prosecution must exist. They argue that there is reluctance of drug dealers to call emergency services for fear of getting prosecuted themselves for the crime of supplying drugs. Other critics agree that this problem exists and that it is a question of policy versus saving a life. Catherine Elliot and Claire de Than (2006) argue for a new statutory offence to deal with this branch of the law holding drug dealers criminally liable, however offering a defence to those who seek medical help. Therefore, it can be argued that there is a general consensus that drug dealers should be punished for their crimes while maintaining a balance between retribution, deterrent and incentive to seek medical help when mishaps occur.