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.
Discuss the criminal liability of Albert, adding critical comment where you think the law is unsatisfactory. You need not consider offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. 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 by Carol leading to s47 Offences Against the Persons Act and the death of Diane amounting to gross negligence manslaughter. I argue that the courts are unlikely to find Albert liable for the death of Bert and injuries inflicted on Carol. However it is likely that the courts will find him liable for the death of Diane.The most serious crime within the law of homicide is murder. For culpability to be established (in any crime including murder) the accused needs to meet the mens rea (metal culpability) and actus reus (the prohibited act) criteria. Lord Mustill defined murder as “… to be proved that the defendant did the act which caused the death intending to kill the victim or to cause him at least grievous bodily harm.”1 Applying this definition to Bert’s death it can be argued that the death was caused by the drugs provided by Albert
The Essay on Stand Your Ground Law 3
The “Stand Your Ground” statute states that “a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to ...
