The Facts

Misusers of prescription medications acquire Xanax and OxyContin tablets

The deceased, the accused and another man were all misusers of prescription medications, in particular, OxyContin. This is a brand name of oxycodone, an opioid drug prescribed by doctors for pain relief and misused by some for recreational purposes. They would "mull up" the tablets (ie dissolve them in water in a spoon) and then inject the drug intravenously.

On one particular day, the group of three had procured some Xanax, a short-acting benzodiazepine which is prescribed by doctors to relieve anxiety and which is also misused by some for the purpose of intoxication.

While there was disagreement about the number of Xanax tablets procured and who took how many of those tablets, the court determined that all three members of the group had some of the tablets.

After this, the three went to the home of another man and swapped some alcohol, which they'd previously stolen, for OxyContin. The deceased, the accused and the other man all took some OxyContin.

Deceased loses consciousness and is driven to home of accused

The deceased began to "nod off", ie lose consciousness, and was placed in the back of a utility vehicle belonging to the accused.

There is disagreement between witnesses as to the precise sequence of events, but the court accepted that the accused drove the deceased from the first house to her home.

The deceased was found dead on the ground next to the ute by the mother of the accused, after she arrived home from work at 7.30 in the morning.

Did the accused assume duty of care of the deceased? And did her actions cause his death?

There were two important questions in dispute in this case.

The first is whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused by her actions caused the death of the deceased. The second is whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assumed a duty of care for the deceased.

There was also a very real question as to whether the deceased died before or after the accused drove him from the house where they had taken the OxyContin.

case a - The case for the prosecution

case b - The case for the accused

  • The deceased was still alive when the accused drove him away from the house where they took the drugs.
  • The deceased was still alive when the accused arrived at her home.
  • The accused assumed a duty of care over the deceased by driving him away from the first house, where, according to the prosecution, others present were going to take him to the local hospital.
  • The accused was very much aware of the precarious state the deceased was in when she arrived at her home.
  • The accused failed to get medical attention for the deceased.
  • Telephone records for the accused's mobile phone on the night in question show that her phone was working and that she did not dial triple-0.
  • The gross criminal negligence by the accused thereby caused or accelerated the death of the deceased and she should be found guilty of manslaughter.
  • The prosecution cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was not already dead by the time we left the house.
  • Equally, the prosecution cannot prove that the deceased did not drive the ute himself when the vehicle left the house.
  • In either of those circumstances, there could be no question of any legal liability arising on my part.
  • All of the witnesses were themselves affected by substances and so their testimonies are unreliable.
  • The person whose house we were at on the night in question did not want the ambulance called to the house because of matters related to self-interest.
  • I did make more than one attempt to call triple-0 on my phone, but it malfunctioned and switched itself off.
  • I deny criminal liability for the death of the deceased.

So, which case won?

Cast your judgment below to find out

Case A ✔

Case B ✔

Jack Miller
Criminal law
Stacks Heard McEwan

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.