R v Kennedy [2007]

1. Facts:

• The defendant (D) prepared a syringe of heroin for the victim (V).

• V injected himself with the heroin and died shortly afterward.

• D was initially convicted of manslaughter.

2. Outcome:

• The Court of Appeal (CoA) held that D's act of preparing the syringe did not break the chain of causation.

• The act of self-injection by V was deemed to be an independent and intervening act, thus breaking the chain of causation from D to V's death.

• The conviction was overturned.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Chain of Causation: The ruling emphasises that the autonomous act of self-injection by V was a significant intervening act that broke the chain of causation, illustrating the principle that personal autonomy can sever legal responsibility.

• Distinction from Empress: Differentiates from R v Empress Car Co. by focusing on the context and the nature of the intervening act. In Kennedy, the self-injection was a voluntary and independent act, unlike the more direct connection in Empress.

• Foreseeability Debate: Cherkassky criticises the ruling for ignoring foreseeability. Despite D’s preparation of the syringe making it foreseeable that V might inject, the court held that D’s involvement was insufficient to maintain causation.

• Legal Principles: The case illustrates the challenge in balancing foreseeability with the principle of personal autonomy in determining causation. The ruling suggests that, under s.23 OAPA, the defendant must have a more direct involvement or control over the harm to be held responsible, rather than merely setting up the circumstances.