What is the central issue in R v. Kennedy?

Whether the victim’s deliberate self-injection breaks the chain of causation so that the supplier is not liable for the death.

How did the court rule on causation?

The House of Lords held that an adult of sound mind who self-injects acts voluntarily. This free, informed choice breaks causation.

Does preparing the syringe count as administration?

No. Preparing and handing over a ready syringe is not administration. The drug was self-administered.

What is the key legal principle from this case?

Criminal law presumes free will for informed adults. A voluntary, knowledgeable act by the victim is a new intervening act.

Why is R v. Kennedy important for students?

It clarifies novus actus interveniens in drug-supply deaths and sets a clear rule for when the chain of causation ends.

R v. Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38

House of Lords 2007 Law Lords UKHL 38 Criminal Law • Causation ~6 min

CASE_TITLE: R v. Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38 PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: causation, self-injection, intervening act SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: novus actus, drug supply, free will PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-11-02 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India Slug: r-v-kennedy-2007-ukhl-38

Quick Summary

This case is about causation in criminal law. The supplier prepared heroin and handed over a ready syringe. The adult recipient voluntarily injected himself and died. The House of Lords held that the victim’s free and informed act broke the chain of causation. The supplier did not “administer” the drug and was not the legal cause of death.

```

Issues

Does a competent adult’s self-injection count as a new intervening act (novus actus) that ends causation?
Is preparing and supplying a syringe the same as administering the drug?

Rules

Criminal law generally presumes free will. Informed adults of sound mind are treated as autonomous. Their voluntary choices are their own.

Exceptions exist (youth, lack of capacity, duress, necessity, deception, mistake). None applied here.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline visual for the facts in R v. Kennedy

Hostel setting: The appellant and two residents, Marco Bosque and Andrew Cody, lived in the same hostel.

10 Sept 1996: The appellant visited their room while Bosque was drinking with Cody.

Request: Bosque asked for “a bit to make him sleep.” The appellant warned him not to “sleep permanently.”

Preparation: The appellant prepared a dose of heroin and handed over a ready syringe.

Self-administration: Bosque injected himself and returned the empty syringe. The appellant left.

Aftermath: Bosque stopped breathing. He was taken to hospital and pronounced dead.

Cause of death: Aspiration of gastric contents while acutely intoxicated by opiates and alcohol.

Arguments

Appellant

He did not administer the heroin.
The victim chose to self-inject; that voluntary act breaks causation.
Preparation/supply is different from administration.

Respondent

Supplying a ready syringe strongly contributed to the death.
The supplier should be responsible for the foreseeable result.

Judgment

The House of Lords allowed the appeal. Bosque, an adult of sound mind, voluntarily self-injected. That free and informed act was a new intervening act. The heroin was self-administered, not jointly administered. Therefore, the appellant neither administered nor caused the drug to be administered.

Ratio

When a fully informed adult voluntarily self-injects a drug, the voluntary act breaks the chain of causation. Supplying or preparing the drug, without administration, is not enough for liability for the resulting death.

Why It Matters

Clarifies the boundary between supply and administration.
Gives a clear test for novus actus in drug-related deaths.
Highlights the role of free will in criminal causation.

Key Takeaways

Self-injection by an informed adult = new intervening act.
Preparation/supply ≠ administration.
Look for capacity, information, and voluntariness.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Free Will Cuts Chain.”

Free: Adult of sound mind?
Will: Informed, voluntary act?
Chain: If yes, causation breaks.

IRAC Outline

Part	Content
Issue	Does self-injection by an adult break the chain of causation?
Rule	Law presumes adult free will; voluntary informed act is a novus actus; supply ≠ administration.
Application	Victim asked for heroin, received a prepared syringe, injected himself knowingly; thus voluntary act.
Conclusion	Chain of causation broken; appellant not liable for the death.

Glossary

Novus actus interveniens: A new, independent act that breaks the chain of causation.
Administration: Directly giving a substance to another person’s body.
Causation: The legal link between conduct and harm.