R v Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38 is a leading decision of the House of Lords on the law of manslaughter in England. It addressed the scope of unlawful act manslaughter and, more specifically, the effect of an adult’s voluntary and informed choice in administering drugs to themselves. The ruling established that a supplier cannot be guilty of manslaughter when a competent adult freely and voluntarily injects a drug that leads to their death. This case is central to understanding how the criminal law treats causation, autonomy, and the principle of novus actus interveniens in unlawful act manslaughter.
Facts of R v Kennedy
The defendant, Simon Kennedy, lived in a hostel along with Marco Bosque and Andrew Cody. On 10 September 1996, Kennedy visited the room shared by Bosque and Cody. The men had been drinking alcohol. Bosque, who was already a user of heroin, asked Kennedy for “a bit to help [him] sleep”. Kennedy prepared a dose of heroin and provided Bosque with a syringe containing the drug.
Bosque injected himself with the heroin and returned the syringe to Kennedy, who then left the room. A short while later, Bosque collapsed. An ambulance was called, but he was declared dead on arrival at hospital. The medical cause of death was asphyxia caused by pulmonary aspiration of stomach contents while acutely intoxicated by opiates and alcohol.
Following Bosque’s death, Kennedy was arrested and charged. At trial in the Old Bailey in November 1997, he was convicted of manslaughter and of supplying a Class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
Procedural History
After his conviction, Kennedy appealed to the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. On 31 July 1998, the Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the conviction for manslaughter.
In February 2004, the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back to the Court of Appeal under its powers in the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. Once again, the Court of Appeal dismissed Kennedy’s appeal and left the conviction intact.
Kennedy then appealed to the House of Lords. The appeal was heard by the Law Lords sitting as an Appellate Committee, who were tasked with considering whether Kennedy’s actions could properly support a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter.
Issues Before the House of Lords
The House of Lords had to resolve two key questions:
- Whether the voluntary act of self-injection by the victim, a fully informed and competent adult, amounted to a novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act) that broke the chain of causation between Kennedy’s supply of the drug and Bosque’s death.
- Which unlawful act formed the correct basis for the manslaughter charge—was it the supply of heroin under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, or could it be argued that Kennedy had committed the offence of administering a noxious substance under section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?
Arguments Considered
It was accepted that Kennedy had committed an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by supplying a controlled drug to Bosque. However, the Lords noted that supplying drugs, in itself, does not necessarily cause harm. Harm arises only when the recipient chooses to consume the drug, in a form and quantity that is dangerous.
The Crown Prosecution Service argued that Kennedy’s actions went beyond simple supply. They contended that Kennedy had “administered” the drug within the meaning of section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Their position was that by preparing the syringe and encouraging Bosque to inject, Kennedy had taken an active role in the administration of the heroin. If this was correct, the act of administering a noxious substance could form the basis of unlawful act manslaughter.
The Lords considered whether Kennedy could properly be said to have administered the heroin. In doing so, they examined earlier authorities, including R v Dalby [1982] 1 WLR 425, which held that supplying drugs could not, by itself, ground a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter, and R v Dias [2002] Cr App R 96, which recognised that a voluntary act of self-injection was capable of breaking the chain of causation.
R v Kennedy Judgement
The House of Lords unanimously quashed Kennedy’s conviction for manslaughter.
The reasoning was straightforward:
- The crime of unlawful act manslaughter requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant committed an unlawful act which was itself a crime, and that this unlawful act was a significant cause of the victim’s death.
- While Kennedy had undoubtedly committed the unlawful act of supplying heroin, this offence was not a significant cause of Bosque’s death. The direct cause of death was Bosque’s own voluntary and informed act of injecting the drug.
- Bosque was an adult of sound mind, who chose to self-administer the heroin. His free and voluntary choice constituted a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation between Kennedy’s supply and his death.
On the prosecution’s argument that Kennedy had administered the drug under section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the Lords rejected this interpretation. To “administer” a drug requires more than preparing it for another person; the act of self-injection was entirely Bosque’s own. Kennedy’s conduct did not amount to administering the drug.
The Lords in R v Kennedy further noted that Kennedy could not be held liable as an accomplice, since Bosque had not committed any criminal offence by injecting himself. The Misuse of Drugs Act criminalises the possession and supply of drugs, but it does not criminalise the act of self-administration.
Accordingly, the House of Lords concluded that there was no basis in law for a manslaughter conviction. Kennedy’s conviction was therefore quashed.
Conclusion
R v Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38 remains a leading authority on unlawful act manslaughter and causation. It established that when a competent adult voluntarily self-administers drugs supplied by another, the supplier cannot be guilty of manslaughter if death results. The decision reflects the criminal law’s respect for autonomy, recognising that personal responsibility lies with the adult who freely chooses to inject themselves.