“He died because she didn’t ring triple zero. It’s manslaughter.” Which case won?

Stacks Law Firm is a leading Australian legal service provider with more than 250 people operating locally in many Australian communities. We are committed to supporting the legal needs of everyday Australians and businesses across every stage of life.

Explore Firm Details

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.

Australia Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Article Insights

Reza Sedaghat’s articles from Stacks Law Firm are most popular:

within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
in United States
with readers working within the Healthcare, Property and Retail & Leisure industries

The Facts

Misusers of prescription medications acquire Xanax and OxyContin tablets

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 had some of the tablets.

After this, the three went to the home of another man and swapped some alcohol, which they had previously stolen, for OxyContin. Each of the three took some OxyContin.

Man loses consciousness and is driven to home of accused

One of the three began to "nod off", ie lose consciousness, and was placed in the back of a utility vehicle belonging to the accused, his friend.

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

He 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 a duty of care? And did her actions cause her friend's 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 her friend's death. The second is whether the prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that she assumed a duty of care for him.

There was also a very real question as to whether the man 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 her friend 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 he was in when she arrived at her home.
The accused failed to get medical attention for him.
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 zero.
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 my friend was not already dead by the time we left the house.
Equally, the prosecution cannot prove that he 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 his house because of matters related to self-interest.
I did make more than one attempt to call triple zero on my phone, but it malfunctioned and switched itself off.
I deny criminal liability for the death of my friend.

So, which case won?

Cast your judgment below to find out

Reza Sedaghat
Criminal and traffic law
Stacks Collins Thompson

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.

[View Source]