R v Khan and Khan
Drug dealers who left a young woman to die after supplying her with heroin were not automatically under a duty to summon help.
Facts
Two brothers supplied heroin to a 15 year old girl, who had not taken it before. She took a large amount in a flat with them, became seriously ill and went into a coma. They left her alone in the flat and she died. They were convicted of manslaughter, on the basis that they had failed to summon medical help.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions. Liability for manslaughter by omission depends on the defendant being under a duty to act, and the trial judge had not directed the jury on whether the circumstances gave rise to such a duty. The court did not rule out that a drug dealer might owe a duty to a person to whom he had supplied drugs, but held that it was not automatic. The question was later developed in R v Evans.
Related cases on Actus reus and omissions
- Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789
- DPP v Santana-Bermudez [2003] EWHC 2908 (Admin)
- Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439
- R v Dytham [1979] QB 722
- R v Evans (Gemma) [2009] EWCA Crim 650, [2009] 1 WLR 1999
- R v Gibbins and Proctor (1918) 13 Cr App R 134
- R v Instan [1893] 1 QB 450
- R v Larsonneur (1933) 24 Cr App R 74
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.
