- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Khan (1998)
Citation: R v Khan (1998) (Court of Appeal - Criminal Division)
Facts:
Citation: R v Khan (1998) (Court of Appeal - Criminal Division)
Facts:
- Defendant (D) sold heroin to a 15-year-old prostitute.
- The dose was twice the amount usually taken by experienced heroin users.
- The victim went into a coma.
- D fled the scene.
- The victim died.
- Whether D was guilty of manslaughter.
- D was not guilty of manslaughter (due to faulty jury direction).
- Manslaughter by Omission or Wilful Neglect:
- Manslaughter by omission or wilful neglect is not a free-standing offence. The prosecution must establish an existing duty of care before the defendant can be liable for manslaughter by omission.
- Judge's Duty:
- The trial judge must precisely rule on how the defendant had a duty of care to the deceased.
- The judge must give the jury full directions on the specific requirements to meet the relevant duty of care.
- Clarifies the necessary elements for establishing manslaughter by omission.
- Emphasizes the importance of the judge's role in defining the duty of care and providing clear directions to the jury regarding that duty.
- Highlights that proving a duty of care is a prerequisite for liability in cases of manslaughter by omission.
0 Comments