The Criminal Court Case: The Inadequacy Of The Criminal Law

It is widely accepted that the social interest is stimulated by the criminal law. Crime as a public wrong, it affects the society by making them feel less secure. Judgment can be easily misinterpreted or a minor detail with being forgettable, with the result of image distortion. Particularly, in the case of Kennedy, the conviction of two counts of offences, the supplying of a class-A drug and a manslaughter, was controversial. This study will first explore, the facts of that case which are essential to identify the law. Moreover, it will investigate the law and analyse the solution provided by the courts. Furthermore, it will examine the inadequacy of the courts. Finally, it will outline the possible reforms that they should set out in order

Kennedy (No2) [2007] UKHL 38, the evidence suggests that the incident was made on 10 September 1996. The case was tried in the House of Lords on 17 October 2007. Under the surveillance of five judges, who headed by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, they had the obligation to investigate and solve the case involving the administration of drug and manslaughter. In depth, the protagonists were living in a hostel for homeless people in London. Marco Bosque, victim, shared a room with Andrew Cody. Simon Kennedy, defendant, also lived in the hostel. Both victim and defendant were drug addicts. The day of the incident, Kennedy visited the room of Bosque where he was drinking with Cody. The victim told Kennedy that he wanted “a bit to make him sleep”. Furthermore, Kennedy prepared a syringe of heroin and he gave it to him ready for injection. After that, the deceased voluntarily injected alone himself and returned the empty syringe back. Bosque was found not breathing, so they called an ambulance to transfer him to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. The cause of his death was inhalation of gastric contents which became from acutely intoxication generated from drugs and

Firstly, for the first conviction, there are two parts of administering noxious thing. The section 23 and the section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The section 23 offence is the major serious offence. In that case, Kennedy, convicted under the section 23, in the reason of unlawfully administer heroin to the victim, endangering his life. On the other hand, considering manslaughter, in that case the most suitable offence is unlawful act manslaughter. In order to prove that the defendant is liable of that offence, prosecution should follow specific elements. According to Lord Salmon, the four ingredients of the offence are mentioned in the case of DPP v. Newbury and Jones. According to these elements, the defendant intentionally did an act (administer heroin), which was unlawful and also dangerous. According to Lord Salmon, all elements should be fulfilled. At that time, Kennedy was successfully established the first three elements. The prosecution should observe the elements of causation in order to establish the fourth element. At that stage, the court made a subversive decision, which acquits the defendant from the unlawful act manslaughter. The reason was that the chain of causation broken at the third stage. The court held that a new intervening act was made and Kennedy was