• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5

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

Extracts from this document...


Albert is a drug-dealer. One evening, selling heroin up a dark alley, he is first approached by Bert, with whom he has dealt several times in the past. Albert sells him the drug. Bert goes home, injects himself, and dies that same evening from an overdose. Next Albert is approached by Carol, whom he has never met before, but correctly supposes to be already heavily addicted. She is so desperate for the heroin that, at her request, he holds her arm steady while she injects herself there and then with the heroin he has supplied. Carol has a seizure and hits her head against a wall, resulting in severe bruising, but no lasting injury. Finally, Albert is approached by Diane, whom he knows well, and, at her suggestion they both go to her flat. There Diane injects herself with the heroin that Albert supplies. She passes out and Albert carries her to her bed, lying down beside her. When he awakes next morning Diane is looking very pale and is not conscious. Albert decides just to leave her there. Diane dies that afternoon from the heroin injection, never having recovered consciousness. The medical evidence is that her life would very likely have been saved had she received medical attention earlier in the day. ...read more.


On the surface it appears that the actus reus is satisfied in the given case (T v DPP10). 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)11. 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. ...read more.


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. 1 Lord Mustill, Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1994). 2 R v Franklin (1883) 15 c*x CC 163. 3 R v Lowe [1977] AC 500. 4 R v Andrews [1937] AC 576 5 [1966] 1QB 59, 70 6 R v Mitchell [1983] Q.B. 741 7 R v Dalby [1982] 1 All ER 916 (CA) 8 Crown Prosecution Service. Offences against the Person, Incorporating the Charging Standard. October 16, 2009. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/#P189_14382 (accessed November 30, 2009). 9 R v Donovan 25 Cr. App. Rep. 1, CCA 10 T v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2003] Crim. L. R. 622 11R. v Kennedy (Simon) [2007] UKHL 38 12 R v Khan & Khan (1998) CLR 830 13 Sinclair, Johnson and Smith (1998) 148 N.L.J. 1353 CA (Crim Div) 14 R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8, 11 15 R v Adamako [1995] 1 AC 171, 187 16 Elliott, Catherine, and Claire de Than. "Prosecuting the Drug Delaer When a Drug User Dies: R v Kennedy (No. 2)." The Modern Law Review, 2006: 987-995. ?? ?? ?? ?? John Mathew ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Criminal law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

4 star(s)

Good identification of the issues. The student could structure the material more clearly, however.

4 Stars.

Marked by teacher Edward Smith 07/08/2013

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Criminal law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Art and part liability

    4 star(s)

    that the persons must be acting towards some form of 'common purpose' which can be shown through either: actual knowledge or anticipation, or voluntary or intentional assistance in the commission of the crime. Common purpose may be premeditated or spontaneous: it may be evidenced by an agreement or by people appearing to act according to a common plan.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Criminal Law Omissions. In the English legal system there is generally no liability ...

    4 star(s)

    help from a life support machine, the NHS trust and the family decided in the best interest of the patient would be to end his treatment, however the doctors wanted assurance from the courts if it is permissible for them to switch off the machines, the House of Lords held

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Criminal Law - Problem Question - Homicide

    4 star(s)

    and of the age of discretion, unlawfully killeth within any country of the realm any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either expressed by the party or implied by law"1. There are four elements to this which must be proven by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Critically consider all arguments concerning spousal compellability and conclude whether or not it ...

    4 star(s)

    Section 80 of the PACE18 specifically refers to a spouse or civil partner; there is no mention of cohabitees. Therefore, cohabitees will be compellable even if they live identically to a married couple; this inevitably questions the justification of the law on spousal compellability.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    "All inchoate offences should be abolished on the theory that society is not harmed ...

    3 star(s)

    proceedings, so this is a problem for offenders who organise the event and get others to carry out.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Case Note - Stone & Dobinson 1977. The details contained in this case are ...

    3 star(s)

    The appellants did make efforts to care[3]. The appellant?s contention was that the prosecution in order to succeed must show recklessness on the part of the defendant; that recklessness in this context means foresight of the likelihood or possibility of death or serious injury and a determination nevertheless to persist in the omission to provide care.[4] Mr.

  1. problem question on murder

    It is restated in the Draft5 under 'Supervening Fault'. Furthermore, prosecution will determine the question that -was there a break in the chain of causation, any intervening act? The prosecution must look at Dr Dan's act, that he was so busy to monitor the condition of Ali for six hours.

  2. After Woollin, the law of Intention remains unclear, but nonetheless works in a satisfactory ...

    This was the situation in the case of R v Stephenson.[15] Even though, this case deals with the idea of recklessness, it provides an insight into how the jury can use the subjective approach to find what the defendant really intended, based on their individual characteristics.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work