Rodgers, R. v

A person who actively participates in the mechanics of another person’s drug injection is a principal, rather than merely a secondary party. Applying and holding a tourniquet so that the recipient can inject himself is part of the injection process and constitutes the actus reus of administering the drug. It is therefore immaterial that self-injection is not itself a criminal offence.

Where death is agreed to have resulted from that injection, no separate issue of causation arises. The participant may be liable under section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and for unlawful act manslaughter.

The appellant and the deceased had consumed cider and obtained heroin. The deceased injected the appellant and then injected himself while the appellant held the appellant’s belt around the deceased’s arm as a tourniquet. The deceased suffered cardiac arrest and died eight days later.

At Plymouth Crown Court, Morland J ruled that holding the tourniquet was part of administering heroin. The appellant then pleaded guilty to administering a poison so as to endanger life, contrary to section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and to manslaughter. He received concurrent three-year sentences.

The appeal concerned whether the appellant was a principal in the injection or merely assisted an act of self-injection, and whether causation required determination by a jury.

The Vice President, giving the judgment of the court, dismissed both appeals.

1. The decisive issue was whether the appellant was a principal or a secondary party. The court accepted that self-injection is not an unlawful act. It also accepted the criticism of reasoning in Kennedy [1999] Crim LR 65 which had proceeded on the contrary basis.

2. The appellant’s conduct had to be assessed in its practical setting, rather than by considering the tourniquet alone. Its purpose and effect were to raise a vein into which the deceased could inject heroin. By applying and holding it, the appellant actively participated in the mechanics of the injection which caused death. He was therefore a principal who committed the actus reus of administering the drug under section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

3. The court explained that this conclusion was consistent with Dias [2001] EWCA Crim 2986. Even where a victim self-injects, a supplier may commit manslaughter if causation is established. A person who actively participates in the injection process has, a fortiori, no answer to a section 23 charge or unlawful act manslaughter if death results. Since it was common ground that the injection caused death, no causation issue remained for the jury.

4. The trial judge’s ruling was correct. The conviction appeal was dismissed. The concurrent three-year sentences were not excessive, notwithstanding the prompt guilty plea after the ruling and the finding that the appellant had not supplied the heroin. The sentence appeal was also dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeals against conviction and sentence: [2003] EWCA Crim 945.
• Plymouth Crown Court — Morland J ruled on 25 February 2002 that holding the tourniquet was part of administering heroin. Following that ruling, the appellant pleaded guilty and received concurrent three-year sentences.