Criminal Law – Question 6

Yan is a heroin addict and Zoe knew this whereas Zoe is an ex - addict, now no longer an addict. Yan
asks Zoe to inject him, hence this is voluntary intoxication by Zoe since he willingly asks her to inject
him. However, injecting someone with heroin is an illegal act or even injecting ownself with heroin is
illegal since this is a Class A drug under Misuse Drugs Act 1971.

However, Zoe reluctantly injects Yan when he threatens to inject himself if she does not and this can
be duress, however the threat is not a serious one because the duress is not going to harm Zoe and
in fact Yan is harming his ownself. Nevertheless, Zoe can argue that he concerns for Yan since she
and him are partners in long - standing relationship.

Hence, she injects Yan in fear that if he injects himself, he may overdose. Hence, Zoe in this instance
may claim that the circumstance necessitates her act of injecting him because she has to do so, if not
the harm may be even serious. Nonetheless, the heroin is not used for medical purpose or is not
crucial for life, and it is only for self - intoxication and it’s a habit or lifestyle Yan is practicing. In this
circumstance, necessity as a defence may fail. Moreover, Zoe being an ex-addict shall have known
the risks and harms as well as the consequences of injecting heroin and shall not have injected Yan
since he may threaten her as such in the future. Her act of injecting heroin on Yan can be seen as
unreasonable and it may not qualify for any defences such as necessity or duress.

However, Zoe had overdosed Yan and after some time, Yan finds breathing difficult and he collapses.
Zoe just put him on bed and watch over him because she was anxious not to get herself into trouble,
thus she did not summon for any medical help at this stage and hence this can amount to an
omission because Zoe is in a long - standing relationship with Yan and shall have gotten help the
moment as seen in R v Hood. Even in the case of R v Evans, the defendant was liable for breaching
duty owed to sister. Evans in this case has caused or contributed to creating a life-threatening
situation; a consequent duty would normally arise to take reasonable steps to save the person’s life.
On the facts of this case, Evans created such a situation by providing the heroin to her half-sister and
had not taken subsequent steps to negate the danger created and so was convicted of gross
negligence manslaughter. Zoe in this case too would be liable for gross negligence manslaughter if
Yan died due to overdose since she has injected him and had failed to get medical assistance.

However, this is not the case since when Yan has not regained consciousness 2 hours later, Zoe
called an ambulance and so she has gotten the medical help and so cannot be liable for gross
negligence manslaughter. Yet, her intervention is delayed and she could be answerable for that. At
the hospital, Yan's breathing gets worse and he appears to be in great distress and so Dave, a junior
doctor mistakenly administers a strong sedative and hence this can be an intervening event and so
the causation link can be broken. Even if Zoe initially injected Yan and caused Yan to be having
breathing difficulties and being unconscious, the legal causation could now be broken by medical
intervention. The causation in fact was satisfied but as per the legal causation, this can be broken.
The case that can be looked into is R v Cheshire and in this case the court laid down that the
intervening event of medical treatment shall be independent of defendant's act to break the chain of
causation. In the case of R v Jordan, it was laid down that if the medical intervention was the cause
of death of victim, the defendant is not liable. Similarly, in this case study, the medical evidence in
this indicates that administering a sedative to someone unconscious due to heroin ingestion is
potentially lethal and that if the sedative had not been administered Yan would most probably
survive, thus this is a clear case to reflect that the doctor was liable for the death of Yan. Zoe is
therefore not criminally liable for the death of Yan and Dave, being a junior doctor shall have been
careful in his duty and even if he is inexperienced and new, the standard of care owed is same and
he is liable for the death of Yan.

Later, when Dave tells Zoe about the mistake he has made, Zoe in fury stabs Dave through the heart
using a pair of scissors and Dave dies immediately. Zoe's act is an act of murder since she has
unlawfully killed Zoe with the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Zoe however, did the
act of stabbing Dave in fury and in anger for the loss of her partner, Yan. She could claim for
voluntary manslaughter and apply the defence of loss of self - control under section 54 of the
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and she could say that the confession by Dave has caused the anger
trigger and hence she has done so. However, this defence is only available if Zoe's act is reasonable
and that anyone in her age, gender, position would have done the same as what she did. The test for
the reasonableness would be an objective test and it is unreasonable for Zoe to have reacted in such
a way because for the negligence of Dave and the death caused to Yan, she could claim
compensation and she is irrational when she just acts in Fury, stabbing Dave with scissors.

Therefore, the defence of loss of self - control would not be successful for Zoe with regards to
murder of Dave and hence Zoe is criminally liable for the murder of Dave but not liable for death of
Yan due to the reasons discussed above.