• concluded that he was responsible for having created the dangerous situation, the defendant was under a duty to take action to resolve it once he became aware of a dangerous situation. This is assessed objectively.

• not necessary he was subjectively aware of the risk posed

R v Evans

• if an individual caused or contributed to creating a life-threatening situation; a consequent duty would normally arise to take reasonable steps to save the persons life

• had not taken subsequent steps to negate the danger created

R v Adomako

• held that in cases of manslaughter by criminal negligence involving a breach of duty the ordinary principles of the law of negligence applied to ascertain whether the defendant had been in breach of a duty of care to the victim

• question for the jury - ‘was the defendant’s conduct so bad in all the circumstances that it ought to amount to criminal?’

My first submission my Ladyship is regarding the ground of appeal concerning the learned trial judge misdirecting the jury by applying The crown and Gibbins and Proctor year 1918 found in the 13^th Criminal Appeal Reports page 134. The judge was right in this case to direct the jury in this way because Mr White and Mr Davies were cohabiting in a shared flat and subsequently there is some form of duty to arise. if an individual has made a connection with another person that should lead to the assumption of responsibility of that person if they are in peril to avoid unnecessary deaths. At first instance the prosecution used the case of Gibbins and Proctor to establish the duty owed, this is correct as although in this case it is a Parent/child relationship that is established the same test is used to establish a duty of care in this case. The three-stage test which was founded in the case of Caparo and Dickman, year 1990, United Kingdom House of Lords, page 2 consists of the elements of foreseeability, proximity and is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. Within the scenario, it seems Mr White is a frequent user of MDMA and so knows how the drug reacts on himself but should have reasonable knowledge as to know that this is not the case for every individual who partakes in these activities. He therefore should have foreseen some risk as to the react Mr Davies may have had to taking the drug. The proximity of Mr White and Mr Davies was that of cohabitation in a shared flat. They must have had some form of close relationship or friendship as they frequented the local pub together which is something you would only do in a friendship/close relationship situation. Therefore, it can be argued that some form of duty will arise when offering the drug to Mr Davies as he knows it is his first time trying and has the knowledge that it could go wrong. When looking at whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on Mr White, they live together and so there must be some form of looking out for the other in this situation. With all of this knowledge it is believed that Mr White having known that these situations can happen when taking the drug as a frequent user, should have a duty of care imposed on him which he did indeed not fulfil.

In conclusion my lord, it is the submission of the respondent , that if the appellant had in fact took reasonable steps as to call for medical treatment when he first found the respondent in this state, he would have not died from the dangerous situation that he was put in. Your honour, the respondent had never previously taken any form of drug and without the appellant persisting him to take the drug, would have not been in this situation in the first place. The appellant had pestered the respondent to take the drug. The appellant had seen the respondent in what he describes as a "motionless state". The appellant had a duty  and did not take any reasonable steps to correct this dangerous situation.