Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So here's the question:

    "Nina goes to Georgia’s house, Georgia, who was a heroin addict, gave Nina some heroin and asked Nina if she would inject it into her. Nina prepared the heroin in a syringe and then injected it into Georgia’s arm. Georgia immediately collapsed on the floor and Nina called an ambulance. The ambulance arrived but by then Georgia was already dead.

    Advise Nina as to her liability."

    I don't particularly understand where to start for the actus reus and mens rea for this. For the MR, I was thinking oblique intention - Woolin [ 1998].
    And for the AR, factual (White [1910]) and Legal (Cheshire [1991]) causation.

    Furthermore, I understand that the use of the needle is consensual GBH, thus this would come under Constructive Manslaughter. However, if it is consensual, does this not decrease the level of culpability for the crime?
    And could somebody provide me with a bit of information behind Kennedy [1999]?

    Many thanks
    Ps. Sorry its a bit long-winded!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    1) No such thing as consensual GBH - in general you can consent only to assaults and batteries, not to any more serious offence. It might of course reduce the sentence but I doubt you are supposed to discuss that?

    2) When you're talking about unlawful act manslaughter you need to prove the underlying offence, in this case s.20 OAPA (GBH). The mens rea of that section is intention or recklessness that some harm be caused (R v Savage). So when Nina injected the heroin into Georgia, did she foresee a risk that some harm would be caused, and was that risk unreasonable in the circumstances known to her? You also need to discuss whether the act caused 'really serious harm' - the actus reus of GBH from DPP v Smith. Then since consent is not a defence to GBH, Nina seems to be guilty of the s.20 offence.

    3) Next you need to show that the offence caused the death. Again, factual and legal causation, same as in all result offences. Factual causation seems to be established assuming that Georgia died from the heroin overdose. There is nothing to discuss for legal causation because there are no intervening acts.

    4) Of course if you decide that Nina had intention as to Georgia's death (seems incredibly unlikely to me), then the prosecution aren't restricted to a UAM charge, they could charge murder as well.

    5) Kennedy and all those other cases establish that if the victim injects the heroin themselves, the supplier cannot be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter even if the prosecution can show that the supply of drugs was a dangerous crime which caused death. That is because the act of the victim injecting is a novus actus which breaks the chain from the supplier's act. But if the supplier goes beyond that and does some act connected with the injection itself, it is possible that they would be convicted, look at Byram for instance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    1) No such thing as consensual GBH - in general you can consent only to assaults and batteries, not to any more serious offence. It might of course reduce the sentence but I doubt you are supposed to discuss that?

    2) When you're talking about unlawful act manslaughter you need to prove the underlying offence, in this case s.20 OAPA (GBH). The mens rea of that section is intention or recklessness that some harm be caused (R v Savage). So when Nina injected the heroin into Georgia, did she foresee a risk that some harm would be caused, and was that risk unreasonable in the circumstances known to her? You also need to discuss whether the act caused 'really serious harm' - the actus reus of GBH from DPP v Smith. Then since consent is not a defence to GBH, Nina seems to be guilty of the s.20 offence.

    3) Next you need to show that the offence caused the death. Again, factual and legal causation, same as in all result offences. Factual causation seems to be established assuming that Georgia died from the heroin overdose. There is nothing to discuss for legal causation because there are no intervening acts.

    4) Of course if you decide that Nina had intention as to Georgia's death (seems incredibly unlikely to me), then the prosecution aren't restricted to a UAM charge, they could charge murder as well.

    5) Kennedy and all those other cases establish that if the victim injects the heroin themselves, the supplier cannot be convicted of unlawful act manslaughter even if the prosecution can show that the supply of drugs was a dangerous crime which caused death. That is because the act of the victim injecting is a novus actus which breaks the chain from the supplier's act. But if the supplier goes beyond that and does some act connected with the injection itself, it is possible that they would be convicted, look at Byram for instance.
    Ok, thank-you for that.
    Out of curiosity, have you got a year for the Byram case?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Debdener)
    Ok, thank-you for that.
    Out of curiosity, have you got a year for the Byram case?
    Byram [2008] EWCA Crim 516
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    Byram [2008] EWCA Crim 516
    Thank-you ever so much.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.