R v Cato
Injecting another person with heroin, with his consent, was an unlawful act for the purposes of manslaughter.
Facts
Mr Cato and his friend, Mr Farmer, took turns injecting each other with heroin that Mr Farmer had bought, each with the other's consent. Mr Farmer died. Mr Cato was convicted of manslaughter and of administering a noxious thing so as to endanger life, under section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction. Administering a noxious thing under section 23 was an unlawful act, and the victim's consent was no defence. Lord Widgery CJ said that the injection need not be the sole cause of death, as long as it was a cause outside the de minimis range. The case is distinguished from R v Kennedy, because Mr Cato administered the drug himself rather than merely supplying it.
Related cases on involuntary manslaughter
- DPP v Newbury and Jones [1977] AC 500
- R v Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171
- R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8
- R v Bawa-Garba [2016] EWCA Crim 1841
- R v Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd [2011] EWCA Crim 1337
- R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150
- R v Goodfellow (1986) 83 Cr App R 23
- R v Kuddus [2019] EWCA Crim 837
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
