LAW MOOT(RESEARCH WORK)

R V HILL:
LAW UNDER DRUGS ACT 1971
Subject to subsection (3) below, it is an offense for a person to have a controlled drug in his
possession, whether lawfully or not, with intent to supply it to another in contravention of
section 3(1) of this Act.
Section 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a provision in United Kingdom legislation that
addresses the offense of possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply. The Misuse of
Drugs Act 1971 is a key piece of legislation in the UK that regulates the production,
possession, supply, and trafficking of controlled substances.

1. Controlled Drugs:
 The term "controlled drug" refers to substances listed under the Misuse of
Drugs Act 1971. These substances are categorized into Class A, Class B, and
Class C, with different legal consequences for each class.
2. Possession with Intent to Supply:
 The offense is committed when an individual is found in possession of a
controlled drug, and there is evidence to suggest an intention to supply that
drug to others. Intent to supply is a crucial element of the offense.
3. Contravention of Section 3(1):
 Section 3(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 makes it an offense to
unlawfully supply, or offer to supply, a controlled drug. Section 4(1) refers to
the possession with intent to supply in contravention of Section 3(1).
4. Penalties:
 Conviction under Section 4(1) can lead to serious legal consequences,
including imprisonment and fines. The severity of penalties may vary based
on factors such as the type and quantity of the controlled drug involved.
5. Defenses and Exceptions:
 The legislation may provide certain defenses or exceptions, and legal
professionals may explore these based on the circumstances of the case.

Difference between the murder and the manslaughter?

Murder is the intentional killing of another person, while manslaughter
is the unintentional killing of another. Murder carries the distinction of
being planned prior to the crime being committed. Therefore, it is
considered a more serious crime and carries a heavier penalty.
Manslaughter may result in 11 years in prison, and murder can result in
life in prison.
Difference between voluntary and non-voluntary manslaughter?
Either type of manslaughter lacks malicious intent, but there is an
important distinction between the two. Involuntary manslaughter occurs
when the killing results from recklessness or negligence, but there was no
intent to kill. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when there was intent to
cause severe harm or death, but the killing itself was a result of severe
provocation in the moment.
MANSLAUGHTER ARISING FROM AN UNLAWFUL AND DANGEROUS ACT You
can also be convicted of manslaughter if you commit an act that is both
unlawful and dangerous, which results in a person’s death. An example might
be people messing around on motorway bridges, throwing rocks at oncoming
cars. If a rock hits a windscreen and causes a car to crash, killing the driver,
those throwing the rocks could be convicted of manslaughter even though
they didn’t necessarily intend that someone should die. This type of
manslaughter also includes a death arising from a bar brawl, where the
defendant did not intend the victim serious harm. When the court considers
the dangerousness of a defendant’s behaviour, it will apply the objective test
of whether all sober and reasonable people would recognise the act to be
dangerous. In doing so, the court essentially ignores what the defendant
thought was reasonable.

Defence for the Criminal offence:

Self-defence: The law says that if you are attacked, you may use the force that
is reasonably necessary to defend yourself. You may also use reasonable force
to defend another person, property, to prevent crime, or to conduct a lawful
arrest. For example, if you were attacked, and you retaliated to protect
yourself or someone else, you may be able to rely on this defence.
Duress: This is where you were forced by a person or a set of circumstances to
commit an offence. The court will consider whether you reasonably feared
death or serious injury if you did not commit the act, and whether a
reasonable person in your situation would have shared those fears and
responded in the same way.
Automatism: If you were not aware of your actions when committing the
offence, in some rare circumstances, you may be able to rely upon the defence
of automatism. Generally, if you were under the voluntary influence of alcohol
or illicit drugs you will not be able to rely on this defence.

What is the Constructive Manslaughter?

Constructive manslaughter is also known as unlawful act manslaughter. This
is where you committed an act that resulted in the loss of life. You may not
have intended to kill the person, but you must have intended to commit an
unlawful act that the average reasonable person would have considered to be
dangerous.

HOW DO YOU PROVE CONSTRUCTIVE MANSLAUGHTER?

Dangerousness:In order to be convicted of constructive manslaughter, the

court must find that the act that caused the death was dangerous. The
question that the jury would be asked to consider is whether a sober and
reasonable person would recognise that the act was dangerous.
Dangerousness is defined as an act that exposes the victim to a risk of ‘some’
harm. The concept of ‘transferred malice’ means that an act can be dangerous
even if it exposes a different person to a risk of harm than the person who
died.
Causation;The prosecution must show that the unlawful act caused the
victim’s death. There must not be an intervening act that would break the
chain of causation. Say, for example, the unlawful act was obstruction of the
public highway. A protester stood in the road carrying a placard and, because
of this a car, swerved and crashed killing the passenger but not the driver.
However, it subsequently transpired that the driver was drunk at the time. A
prosecution against the protester for manslaughter may fall down on
causation, as their defence team could argue that the drunkenness of the
driver was an intervening act, which broke the chain of causation.
Unlawful Act:In addition to proving that the act that the defendant committed
was dangerous, the prosecution would need to show that it was unlawful, and
that the legal elements for the offence that made it unlawful were made out.
For example, if the offence that was committed was arson, under Section 1(3)
of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, the prosecution would need to prove that
the defendant had without lawful excuse destroyed or damaged property by
fire. It is possible that the defendant would have committed aggravated arson
i.e. arson with intent to endanger life. However, it would not be necessary to
prove the aggravated arson offence in order to secure a conviction for
manslaughter. It would only be necessary to show that the defendant
committed arson, and that the act was dangerous.
What is the actus rea of constructive manslaughter?
The actus reus of constructive manslaughter is causing the death of a human
being by committing an unlawful act which was dangerous Constructive
manslaughter or unlawful act manslaughter is a type of involuntary
manslaughter. In this type of murder, the offender did not have a mens rea to
kill, but the death happened in the circumstances when the offender was
committing an unlawful act. In addition, the offender who can be convicted of
lead to the victim’s death. In other words, the offender’s actions must be
dangerous enough to be perceived by a reasonable person to cause the death
of the victim.
APPEAL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United Kingdom and serves as the final court

of appeal. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance. If a case is

appealed to the Supreme Court, it means that the parties involved are seeking a review of a

decision made by a lower court, and they believe there are legal issues of significant

national importance or points of law that need clarification.

Grounds of Appeal (Appealant) in R v MOSS:

1. Failure to Direct the Jury as to the Nature of the Unlawful Act for Constructive
Manslaughter:
 Rachel contends that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the
nature of the unlawful act required for constructive manslaughter.
 Constructive manslaughter typically involves an unlawful and dangerous act that
causes death. Rachel may argue that her actions, such as supplying contaminated
heroin and persuading William to inject it, did not constitute an unlawful act
within the legal framework for manslaughter.
 This point raises questions about whether Rachel's actions met the criteria for an
unlawful act leading to constructive manslaughter.
2. Unlawful Act and Victim’s Own Act Relieving Defendant of Liability:
 Rachel argues that if there was an unlawful act, such as supplying a controlled
drug under Section 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, or unlawfully and
maliciously administering a noxious thing under Section 23 of the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861, the victim's own act of self-injection relieved her of
liability for the death.
 This point focuses on the legal principle of causation and whether William's
voluntary act of self-injection breaks the chain of causation, absolving Rachel of
criminal liability.
 Rachel may assert that, even if her actions were considered unlawful, the
subsequent act of self-injection was a deliberate and informed act by William,
relieving her of responsibility.
 1. ailure to Direct the Jury on the Nature of the Unlawful Act:
 Rachel may contend that the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury
on the specific elements required for constructive manslaughter. She might
argue that her actions did not amount to an unlawful act or that the jury was
not properly guided on this point.
2. No Unlawful Act on the Evidence:
 Rachel could assert that, based on the evidence presented during the trial,
there was no unlawful act committed by her. This could involve challenging
the characterization of her actions as an unlawful and dangerous act leading
to manslaughter.
3. Victim's Own Act Relieving Defendant of Liability:
 Rachel may argue that even if there was an unlawful act (such as supplying a
controlled drug), the subsequent act of William injecting himself was a
deliberate and informed choice. She might contend that this voluntary act by
William breaks the chain of causation, relieving her of liability.
4. Errors in Legal Directions by the Trial Judge:
 Rachel could raise specific instances where the trial judge may have provided
incorrect or unclear legal directions to the jury, affecting the fairness of the
trial.
5. Examination of the Unlawful Act Under the Relevant Legislation:
 Rachel might request a detailed examination of the provisions under the
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to
demonstrate that her actions did not meet the criteria for manslaughter.
6. Constitutional or Human Rights Arguments:
 Depending on the circumstances, Rachel might explore whether her
conviction raises constitutional or human rights issues, arguing that her rights
were violated during the legal proceedings.
7. Precedent or Clarification of the Law:
 Rachel might contend that the case presents an opportunity for the House of
Lords to establish new legal precedent or provide clarification on the
application of the law in similar situations.

Defendants Arguments:
1. Unlawful Act and Dangerousness:
 The prosecution maintains that Rachel Moss's supply of a
controlled and contaminated substance constitutes an
unlawful and dangerous act. The foreseeability of harm
associated with such substances reinforces the classification of
her actions as a basis for constructive manslaughter.
2. Knowledge or Recklessness Regarding Contamination:
 It is argued that Rachel Moss, being a seasoned heroin user,
should reasonably have been aware of the potential risks
 associated with contaminated substances. The prosecution
contends that her knowledge or recklessness regarding the
nature of the heroin further establishes the commission of an
unlawful act.
3. Causation and Concerted Action:
 The prosecution asserts the concept of joint enterprise or
concerted action, emphasizing that Rachel and William were
acting in concert during the consumption of the heroin. Even if
William's self-injection was the immediate cause of death, the
prosecution contends that Rachel's actions initiated a chain of
events leading to the tragic outcome.
4. Failure to Object to the Jury Instructions:
 It is noted that the defense had the opportunity to object to
any perceived errors in the jury instructions during the trial.
The prosecution argues that the absence of such objections
implies an acceptance of the instructions at the time.
5. Strict Liability for Drug Supply Offenses:
 Prosecutors argue that certain drug supply offenses,
particularly those under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, impose
strict liability. They contend that Rachel's actions fall within the
scope of such offenses, irrespective of her intent or knowledge.
6. Relevance of Human Rights Arguments:
 The prosecution challenges any human rights arguments raised
by Rachel, asserting that her conviction aligns with principles of
a fair trial and public safety. They argue that the victim's right
to life should take precedence over potential claims of
infringement on the defendant's rights.
Section 23 of the offences against the person act
1861:
"Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or

taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to

endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous

bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept

in penal servitude for any term not exceeding fourteen years nor less than three years, or to

be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three years, and, if a male, to be once, twice, or
thrice publicly or privately whipped (if the Court shall so think fit), in addition to such penal

servitude or imprisonment."