Detailed Case Commentary: R v Kennedy and the Law of Manslaughter

This case commentary analyzes the case of R v Kennedy, focusing on the legal arguments and outcomes related to manslaughter and drug supply. The analysis begins with the facts of the case, where Simon Kennedy supplied heroin to Macro Bosque, leading to Bosque's death by asphyxia. The commentary explores the Court of Appeal's initial judgment, holding Kennedy guilty of manslaughter, and the subsequent appeal to the House of Lords, which overturned the conviction. The commentary delves into the specifics of manslaughter, distinguishing between voluntary and involuntary types, and examines the application of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It discusses the Crown Prosecution Service's arguments regarding malicious administration of poison and the significance of Bosque's consent in taking the heroin. The final conclusion affirms that Kennedy was not charged for manslaughter under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, as there was consent of Bosque while taking the injection of heroin.

CRIME AND LAW - CASE
COMMENTARY

INTRODUCTION
This is an reflection that is based upon the case of R v Kennedy and in this Court of
appeal has given the judgement. This an criminal case in which Simon Kennedy lived in hostel
along with Macro Bosque and Andrew Cody. Bosqued died due to asphyxia. Now an self
analysis has to be done over the judgement of the case.
MAIN BODY
Reflection on R v Kennedy
As per my analysis the facts of the case says that Simon Kennedy lives in hostel with
Macro Boaque and Adrew Cody. 10th of September 1996 Kennedy has reached there room in
within which they are drinking alcohol. Kennedy was a known heroin drug supplier to Bosque
and prepered a dose for him. He want the does only to get sleep in night. All this happened and
Kennedy left the room. In some time Bosque was falling short of breathing seeing this
ambulance was called for taking him to hospital. On the way to hospital he died and then it come
out that cause of his death was asphyxia. This is caused due to some unappropriated content in
stomach which is related to intoxication caused duet to alcohol or any kind of drug. The result of
this was that Kennedy got arrested and tried for manslaughter and supplying class a drug and was
sentence for imprisonment of five years. In this an appeal was made to court of England and
Wales that got rejected on 31st July 1998 (Galand, 2020). In this I have observed that Court of
Appeal Criminal Division has held Kennedy guilty of manslaughter that is an unlawful killing
which does not involve malice though intention in this is serious harm, kill, extreme, reckless
disregard for life. Further in detail I have understood that malice is absent in it and manslaughter
involves less moral blame for first or second decree of murder. It has been understood by me
that though its a crime but punishment for it is still less then murder. Also I have learned that
there are two types of manslaughter that is voluntary and involuntary. In voluntary manslaughter
there is an term that is used which is "heat of passion". My understanding about voluntary
manslaughter has made me analysed that in this two things has to be presented that is strong
provocation and kills in the heat of passion through provocation. I have learned that in
involuntary man slaughter it is refer as unintentional homicide from criminally negligent or
reckless conduct. In this an unintentional killing through commission of a crime other than a
felony. In my understanding about the case It can be observed that in the case manslaughter is

non voluntary as the intention was not to kill but to give the dose for sleeping. Also while
analysing the case I have observed that on 24th February 2004 Criminal Case Review
Commission has exercised its power within the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 and his appeal was
dismissed to House of Lords. Further I observed that Lords of Appellate Committee has turned
down the judgement passed by Court of Appeal regarding manslaughter.
has overturned decision of Court of Appeal and quashed Kennedy's conviction for manslaughter.
Further in this I made detailed analysis by which I learned that court made its observation on the
basis of conviction for manslaughter. In this case I have observed that if the two principals of
manslaughter is considered with the act of gross negligence makes sure that defendant has
committed an act which caused the death. In this its is also required that defendant's act should
be able to justify any principle and if not then he cannot be charged for manslaughter.
(Johansson and Battiston, 2020).
The main argument of the case as per my analysis started from third point in which it was
agreed that Kennedy has done crime and crime over supplying drug to Bosque that is a crime
within the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I developed an understanding about the act that main
objective of it is to make use of drugs to be stopped which was made achieveable by putting
complete ban upon it. Only for medical purpose they can be used by issuing of proper license. In
this case through my assistance over the case I have learned that section 23 has been used within
the case that has given power to police search that person and detained him only for the purpose
of searching. He can be seized and detained for the purpose of proceedings with the act. My
aspiration it is to be observed that Crown Prosecution Service made argument that Kennedy has
committed the offence of malicious administrating poison. Also I have made observation that
endangering the life makes body to be harmed in very brutal manner may result into death.. This
is an n unlawful act that has signified the cause of Bosque death. Then in my understanding it
was argued that Kennedy had given heroin to Bosque. In this main word administer has been
used in wider sense which makes encouragement to do so that made him liable over making
Bosque to inject himself (Childs, Robertson and Fulle, 2020).
Also in this Lord has rejected argument over making recognising that made information about
choice with free and consider to be specifically in making heroin available. Also I have observed
that Bosque knowingly inserted the injection which made the basis of manslaughter charge to be
cancelled.

Final understanding that I developed upon the case is that Neither Kennedy and Bosque
has not committed of injecting himself with heroin as this is not an offence under Misuse of
Drug Act. In this there is no mineralization about the act of injecting with administrating drugs. I
have made sure that only unlawful act committed by Kennedy which makes no significance upon
death of Bosque. In the end I find out that this was the reason why the argument was quashed
(Khumalo, 2019).
CONCLUSION
From the above discussion it is clear that Kennedy is not charged for manslaughter under
the Misuse of Drugs Act 197. As there was consent of Bosque while taking the injection of
heroin.

REFERNCES
Books and journals
Childs, A., Robertson, A. and Fuller, J., 2020. A commentary on the potential impact of online
communities and crime-related media on the criminal justice system:‘do you know
more?… join the investigation’. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 32(1). pp.111-123.
Galand, A.S., 2020. The Crime of Aggression: A Commentary. European Journal of
International Law.
Johansson, C. and Battiston, S., 2020. News Reporting of Italian Organised Crime in Australia:
Examining Il Globo’s Editorial Commentary. In The Transnational Voices of
Australia’s Migrant and Minority Press (pp. 189-208). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Khumalo, K., 2019. A commentary on the principles underpinning the crime of public violence
committed by means of threat of violence. South African Journal of Criminal
Justice. 32(2). pp.223-232.
van den Herik, L., 2018. Crime of Aggression Library*** The Crime of Aggression: A
Commentary. Leiden Journal of International Law. 31(3). pp.723-728.