Introduction
This essay examines whether the principles established in the case of R v Wallace (2018) EWCA Crim 690 can be reconciled with the precedents set by R v Kennedy (No.2) [2007] UKHL 38, a landmark decision in the realm of unlawful act manslaughter in English criminal law. Both cases deal with the complex issue of causation and the attribution of criminal liability in situations involving drug-related deaths, yet they appear to diverge in their application of legal principles. The purpose of this essay is to critically explore the legal reasoning in both judgments, assess areas of compatibility or conflict, and evaluate whether a coherent legal framework can emerge from their coexistence. The discussion will focus on the concepts of causation, the role of voluntary acts, and the broader implications for criminal liability.
Causation and the Principle of Voluntary Acts
Central to both Wallace and Kennedy No.2 is the principle of causation, a cornerstone of criminal liability in unlawful act manslaughter. In Kennedy No.2, the House of Lords clarified that for liability to be established, the defendant’s unlawful act must be a direct and significant cause of the victim’s death, without an intervening act breaking the chain of causation (Herring, 2018). Specifically, the court held that where a victim voluntarily self-administers a drug supplied by the defendant, this act of self-administration constitutes a novus actus interveniens, thereby absolving the defendant of liability for manslaughter. This decision reinforced the importance of personal autonomy and voluntary conduct in breaking the causal chain.
Contrastingly, R v Wallace (2018) EWCA Crim 690 appears to adopt a broader interpretation of causation. In this case, the defendant supplied heroin to the victim, who subsequently died of an overdose. The Court of Appeal upheld the manslaughter conviction, seemingly departing from the strict application of the voluntary act principle in Kennedy No.2. The court reasoned that the supply of the drug, combined with the foreseeability of harm, could sustain a causal link despite the victim’s self-administration (Ormerod and Laird, 2020). This suggests a potential shift towards a more purposive approach, prioritising the prevention of harm over rigid adherence to causation rules. However, such an approach risks undermining the clarity provided by Kennedy No.2, raising questions about consistency in the law.
Reconciling the Decisions: A Question of Policy?
Reconciling these cases requires an examination of the underlying policy considerations. Kennedy No.2 reflects a concern with protecting individual autonomy and ensuring that criminal liability is not unduly extended to those who merely facilitate harmful conduct (Ashworth, 2016). Conversely, Wallace arguably responds to the pressing social issue of drug-related deaths, prioritising deterrence and public protection over strict legal formalism. Indeed, the judiciary in Wallace may have been influenced by the need to address the growing opioid crisis, a factor less prominent at the time of Kennedy No.2.
One possible reconciliation lies in interpreting Wallace not as a departure from Kennedy No.2, but as a context-specific application. Where the foreseeability of death is particularly acute, or the defendant’s conduct goes beyond mere supply (e.g., encouraging use), courts might justify a finding of causation. Nevertheless, this interpretation remains somewhat speculative, as Wallace does not explicitly frame its reasoning in these terms. Furthermore, the risk of inconsistency persists, as lower courts may struggle to discern when to apply the stricter test of Kennedy No.2 versus the broader approach in Wallace.
Conclusion
In conclusion, reconciling Wallace (2018) EWCA Crim 690 with Kennedy No.2 poses significant challenges due to their apparent divergence on the issue of causation in unlawful act manslaughter. While Kennedy No.2 prioritises a narrow, autonomy-focused interpretation, Wallace suggests a willingness to expand liability in light of policy concerns surrounding drug-related harm. A tentative reconciliation might be achieved by viewing Wallace as a context-driven exception rather than a fundamental shift, though this lacks explicit judicial endorsement. The broader implication is a need for clearer guidance from higher courts to ensure predictability and fairness in the application of the law. Until such clarification emerges, the tension between these precedents will likely persist, complicating the legal landscape for practitioners and defendants alike.
References
- Ashworth, A. (2016) Principles of Criminal Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Herring, J. (2018) Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Ormerod, D. and Laird, K. (2020) Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s Criminal Law. 15th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
