Today's most viewed
LISTEN HERE
 Jessica Goyder is the latest musician to put her singles on our site. Listen here
| THE INSIDER
 Get the lowdown inside the corridors of power in Oxfordshire here.
| SEND AN OBITUARY
Send us a tribute to someone who has passed away
| ON YER BIKE
 Get the view from the gutter with cycling group Cyclox in Oxfordshire
|
|
|
|
Kidlington man's conviction quashed
A recovering junkie jailed after being found guilty of killing his friend by giving him methadone has had his manslaughter conviction quashed on appeal.
Adam James Wilson, 28, of Hazel Crescent, Kidlington, gave 24-year-old Ryan Farnsworth the heroin substitute when he asked him for some.
But, after he died, Wilson was convicted of manslaughter and supplying methadone at Nottingham Crown Court in March 2007.
It was the prosecution's case at his trial that, in July 2006, Wilson offered father-of-one, Mr Farnsworth, of Hatton, Derbyshire, the prescription drug to help ease the side effects of ecstasy he had taken on a night out.
But it was to prove a lethal combination.
However, in a landmark October 2007 ruling, the nation's highest court - the House of Lords - decided that, if a toxic substance is supplied to someone and administered by that person to himself, the supplier cannot be held criminally responsible for the death.
And Andy Easteal, representing Wilson today at London's Court of Appeal, told Lord Justice Toulson, Mr Justice Andrew Smith and Judge John Rogers QC that fundamental change in the law should apply to Wilson's case.
The appeal judges agreed, overturning the manslaughter conviction.
Wilson was jailed for a total of four and a half years after his convictions. That was later reduced to three and a half years on appeal.
He has already served that sentence and appeared in court today in the public gallery. His conviction for supplying methadone still stands.
9:21am Friday 8th August 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Tom on 10:45am Fri 8 Aug 08
No great loss eh?
Posted by: Alan Page, Guildford on 11:00am Fri 8 Aug 08
So if I was to lace a bottle of wine with cyanide, pass it to somebody and they took a swig and died, I would not be responsible?
More libertarian **** to me.
So if I was to lace a bottle of wine with cyanide, pass it to somebody and they took a swig and died, I would not be responsible?
More libertarian **** to me.
Posted by: Realistic, oxford on 11:11am Fri 8 Aug 08
I would argue Alan that if you said 'There is cyanide in that wine' and they chose to drink it, I don't think you would be responsible for the death, no.
The same as if you gave (or sold) someone some rope, and they chose to make a noose and hang themselves, you would equally be not responsible.
I would argue Alan that if you said 'There is cyanide in that wine' and they chose to drink it, I don't think you would be responsible for the death, no.
The same as if you gave (or sold) someone some rope, and they chose to make a noose and hang themselves, you would equally be not responsible.
Posted by: Tasha, Witney on 11:12am Fri 8 Aug 08
"recovering junkie"....am I reading the Sun?
What sort of foot is that to start an article on. Makes it obvious what view the reporter has of this bloke then! Recovering drug addict if you please.
"recovering junkie"....am I reading the Sun?
What sort of foot is that to start an article on. Makes it obvious what view the reporter has of this bloke then! Recovering drug addict if you please.
Posted by: MIKE, oxford on 11:49am Fri 8 Aug 08
Junkie or drug addict - who cares what word is used. Generally speaking a useless selfish individual making a minus contribution to society.
Junkie or drug addict - who cares what word is used. Generally speaking a useless selfish individual making a minus contribution to society.
Posted by: Alan Page, Oxford on 1:42pm Fri 8 Aug 08
I have frequently taken ecstasy and heroin and have had a great time. I would recommend taking this before setting off on a journey on the A420; as ther are no police to worry about.
I have frequently taken ecstasy and heroin and have had a great time. I would recommend taking this before setting off on a journey on the A420; as ther are no police to worry about.
Posted by: Alan Page, Guildford on 2:04pm Fri 8 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Realistic[/bold] wrote:
I would argue Alan that if you said 'There is cyanide in that wine' and they chose to drink it, I don't think you would be responsible for the death, no. The same as if you gave (or sold) someone some rope, and they chose to make a noose and hang themselves, you would equally be not responsible.[/quote] But that is not what the law now says according the article above.
"If a toxic substance is supplied to somebody and administered by that person to himself, the supplier cannot be held criminally responsible."
No wonder drug dealers are getting away so easily.
Realistic wrote:
I would argue Alan that if you said 'There is cyanide in that wine' and they chose to drink it, I don't think you would be responsible for the death, no. The same as if you gave (or sold) someone some rope, and they chose to make a noose and hang themselves, you would equally be not responsible.
But that is not what the law now says according the article above.
"If a toxic substance is supplied to somebody and administered by that person to himself, the supplier cannot be held criminally responsible."
No wonder drug dealers are getting away so easily.
Posted by: Alan Page, Guildford on 2:06pm Fri 8 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Tasha[/bold] wrote:
"recovering junkie"....am I reading the Sun? What sort of foot is that to start an article on. Makes it obvious what view the reporter has of this bloke then! Recovering drug addict if you please.[/quote] No "recreational drug user" if we are going to get all PC.
I think "junkie" is a more than adequate term.
Tasha wrote:
"recovering junkie"....am I reading the Sun? What sort of foot is that to start an article on. Makes it obvious what view the reporter has of this bloke then! Recovering drug addict if you please.
No "recreational drug user" if we are going to get all PC.
I think "junkie" is a more than adequate term.
Posted by: Tom on 3:11pm Fri 8 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Alan Page[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Tasha[/bold] wrote: "recovering junkie"....am I reading the Sun? What sort of foot is that to start an article on. Makes it obvious what view the reporter has of this bloke then! Recovering drug addict if you please.[/quote] No "recreational drug user" if we are going to get all PC. I think "junkie" is a more than adequate term.[/quote] To call yourself Alan?
Alan Page wrote:
Tasha wrote: "recovering junkie"....am I reading the Sun? What sort of foot is that to start an article on. Makes it obvious what view the reporter has of this bloke then! Recovering drug addict if you please.
No "recreational drug user" if we are going to get all PC. I think "junkie" is a more than adequate term.
To call yourself Alan?
Posted by: paul, abingdon on 4:16pm Fri 8 Aug 08
Tash from Witney, she's one of the 'let them all in brigade'. Okay Tash, we'll send them all to whitney, you should try living in parts where it's been really enriched, then you'd change your bloody tune. Tahs is one of these PC do-gooders that believes you can pick up dog doo-doo by the clean end.
Tash from Witney, she's one of the 'let them all in brigade'. Okay Tash, we'll send them all to whitney, you should try living in parts where it's been really enriched, then you'd change your bloody tune. Tahs is one of these PC do-gooders that believes you can pick up dog doo-doo by the clean end.
Posted by: mike, oxfordshire on 4:23pm Fri 8 Aug 08
yes Tasha is one of the 'let them all in brigade' she lives in a fantasy world,she should be sent to the funny farm with her views.
yes Tasha is one of the 'let them all in brigade' she lives in a fantasy world,she should be sent to the funny farm with her views.
Posted by: Realistic, oxford on 4:30pm Fri 8 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Alan Page[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Realistic[/bold] wrote: I would argue Alan that if you said 'There is cyanide in that wine' and they chose to drink it, I don't think you would be responsible for the death, no. The same as if you gave (or sold) someone some rope, and they chose to make a noose and hang themselves, you would equally be not responsible.[/quote] But that is not what the law now says according the article above. "If a toxic substance is supplied to somebody and administered by that person to himself, the supplier cannot be held criminally responsible." No wonder drug dealers are getting away so easily.[/quote] But your example was 'lacing' a bottle of wine with a toxic substance, so the person had no knowledge of what they were taking so could not be responsible for their actions.
The case in point in the article is someone knowingly taking methadone which is known to be dangerous. I don't think the two can be compared.
Alcohol is a toxic substance. You can't very well track down everyone who has ever supplied alcohol to someone who dies from alcohol poisoning, and prosecute them, which it sounds like you are advocating.
Alan Page wrote:
Realistic wrote: I would argue Alan that if you said 'There is cyanide in that wine' and they chose to drink it, I don't think you would be responsible for the death, no. The same as if you gave (or sold) someone some rope, and they chose to make a noose and hang themselves, you would equally be not responsible.
But that is not what the law now says according the article above. "If a toxic substance is supplied to somebody and administered by that person to himself, the supplier cannot be held criminally responsible." No wonder drug dealers are getting away so easily.
But your example was 'lacing' a bottle of wine with a toxic substance, so the person had no knowledge of what they were taking so could not be responsible for their actions.
The case in point in the article is someone knowingly taking methadone which is known to be dangerous. I don't think the two can be compared.
Alcohol is a toxic substance. You can't very well track down everyone who has ever supplied alcohol to someone who dies from alcohol poisoning, and prosecute them, which it sounds like you are advocating.
Posted by: Alan Page, Guildford on 12:11am Sat 9 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Realistic[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Alan Page[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Realistic[/bold] wrote: I would argue Alan that if you said 'There is cyanide in that wine' and they chose to drink it, I don't think you would be responsible for the death, no. The same as if you gave (or sold) someone some rope, and they chose to make a noose and hang themselves, you would equally be not responsible.[/quote] But that is not what the law now says according the article above. "If a toxic substance is supplied to somebody and administered by that person to himself, the supplier cannot be held criminally responsible." No wonder drug dealers are getting away so easily.[/quote] But your example was 'lacing' a bottle of wine with a toxic substance, so the person had no knowledge of what they were taking so could not be responsible for their actions. The case in point in the article is someone knowingly taking methadone which is known to be dangerous. I don't think the two can be compared. Alcohol is a toxic substance. You can't very well track down everyone who has ever supplied alcohol to someone who dies from alcohol poisoning, and prosecute them, which it sounds like you are advocating. [/quote] No read the law carefully. A "TOXIC" substance. Alcohol is not fatally toxic in the same way as cyanide.
What the law says to me is that if you were to knowingly spike a drink with cyanide and pass it onto somebody. You would NOT be liable for prosecution. A poisoner's charter.
Either the Mail has got the law wrongly summarised or trendy lawyers need their arses kicked to cover up a massive loophole.
Realistic wrote:
Alan Page wrote: Realistic wrote: I would argue Alan that if you said 'There is cyanide in that wine' and they chose to drink it, I don't think you would be responsible for the death, no. The same as if you gave (or sold) someone some rope, and they chose to make a noose and hang themselves, you would equally be not responsible.
But that is not what the law now says according the article above. "If a toxic substance is supplied to somebody and administered by that person to himself, the supplier cannot be held criminally responsible." No wonder drug dealers are getting away so easily.
But your example was 'lacing' a bottle of wine with a toxic substance, so the person had no knowledge of what they were taking so could not be responsible for their actions. The case in point in the article is someone knowingly taking methadone which is known to be dangerous. I don't think the two can be compared. Alcohol is a toxic substance. You can't very well track down everyone who has ever supplied alcohol to someone who dies from alcohol poisoning, and prosecute them, which it sounds like you are advocating.
No read the law carefully. A "TOXIC" substance. Alcohol is not fatally toxic in the same way as cyanide.
What the law says to me is that if you were to knowingly spike a drink with cyanide and pass it onto somebody. You would NOT be liable for prosecution. A poisoner's charter.
Either the Mail has got the law wrongly summarised or trendy lawyers need their arses kicked to cover up a massive loophole.
Posted by: Alan Page, Guildford on 12:13am Sat 9 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Alan Page[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Realistic[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Alan Page[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Realistic[/bold] wrote: I would argue Alan that if you said 'There is cyanide in that wine' and they chose to drink it, I don't think you would be responsible for the death, no. The same as if you gave (or sold) someone some rope, and they chose to make a noose and hang themselves, you would equally be not responsible.[/quote] But that is not what the law now says according the article above. "If a toxic substance is supplied to somebody and administered by that person to himself, the supplier cannot be held criminally responsible." No wonder drug dealers are getting away so easily.[/quote] But your example was 'lacing' a bottle of wine with a toxic substance, so the person had no knowledge of what they were taking so could not be responsible for their actions. The case in point in the article is someone knowingly taking methadone which is known to be dangerous. I don't think the two can be compared. Alcohol is a toxic substance. You can't very well track down everyone who has ever supplied alcohol to someone who dies from alcohol poisoning, and prosecute them, which it sounds like you are advocating. [/quote] No read the law carefully. A "TOXIC" substance. Alcohol is not fatally toxic in the same way as cyanide. What the law says to me is that if you were to knowingly spike a drink with cyanide and pass it onto somebody. You would NOT be liable for prosecution. A poisoner's charter. Either the Mail has got the law wrongly summarised or trendy lawyers need their arses kicked to cover up a massive loophole.[/quote] When I say "spike" I mean a bottle in a way that looks untampered.
Alan Page wrote:
Realistic wrote: Alan Page wrote: Realistic wrote: I would argue Alan that if you said 'There is cyanide in that wine' and they chose to drink it, I don't think you would be responsible for the death, no. The same as if you gave (or sold) someone some rope, and they chose to make a noose and hang themselves, you would equally be not responsible.
But that is not what the law now says according the article above. "If a toxic substance is supplied to somebody and administered by that person to himself, the supplier cannot be held criminally responsible." No wonder drug dealers are getting away so easily.
But your example was 'lacing' a bottle of wine with a toxic substance, so the person had no knowledge of what they were taking so could not be responsible for their actions. The case in point in the article is someone knowingly taking methadone which is known to be dangerous. I don't think the two can be compared. Alcohol is a toxic substance. You can't very well track down everyone who has ever supplied alcohol to someone who dies from alcohol poisoning, and prosecute them, which it sounds like you are advocating.
No read the law carefully. A "TOXIC" substance. Alcohol is not fatally toxic in the same way as cyanide. What the law says to me is that if you were to knowingly spike a drink with cyanide and pass it onto somebody. You would NOT be liable for prosecution. A poisoner's charter. Either the Mail has got the law wrongly summarised or trendy lawyers need their arses kicked to cover up a massive loophole.
When I say "spike" I mean a bottle in a way that looks untampered.
Posted by: Mr Ison, England on 2:40am Sat 9 Aug 08
I suggest something other than a few pills and borrowed methadone killed the guy.
Methadone is traded among junkies,sometimes because the buyer was too deathly ill to leave the house when the shops were open.
But that too could be lies,obvious absurd lies.
I suggest something other than a few pills and borrowed methadone killed the guy.
Methadone is traded among junkies,sometimes because the buyer was too deathly ill to leave the house when the shops were open.
But that too could be lies,obvious absurd lies.
Posted by: Realistic, Oxford on 12:19pm Sat 9 Aug 08
[quote][bold]Alan Page[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Alan Page[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Realistic[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Alan Page[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Realistic[/bold] wrote: I would argue Alan that if you said 'There is cyanide in that wine' and they chose to drink it, I don't think you would be responsible for the death, no. The same as if you gave (or sold) someone some rope, and they chose to make a noose and hang themselves, you would equally be not responsible.[/quote] But that is not what the law now says according the article above. "If a toxic substance is supplied to somebody and administered by that person to himself, the supplier cannot be held criminally responsible." No wonder drug dealers are getting away so easily.[/quote] But your example was 'lacing' a bottle of wine with a toxic substance, so the person had no knowledge of what they were taking so could not be responsible for their actions. The case in point in the article is someone knowingly taking methadone which is known to be dangerous. I don't think the two can be compared. Alcohol is a toxic substance. You can't very well track down everyone who has ever supplied alcohol to someone who dies from alcohol poisoning, and prosecute them, which it sounds like you are advocating. [/quote] No read the law carefully. A "TOXIC" substance. Alcohol is not fatally toxic in the same way as cyanide. What the law says to me is that if you were to knowingly spike a drink with cyanide and pass it onto somebody. You would NOT be liable for prosecution. A poisoner's charter. Either the Mail has got the law wrongly summarised or trendy lawyers need their arses kicked to cover up a massive loophole.[/quote] When I say "spike" I mean a bottle in a way that looks untampered.[/quote] But Methadone is not a toxic substance in the same way as cyanide either. It is a controlled (so is alcohol, but not in the same way).
If you spike in any covert way it is essentially the same, but not the same as handing someone (who knows what it is) methadone. The receiver takes the responsibility for imbibing it, not the 'supplier'.
Alan Page wrote:
Alan Page wrote:
Realistic wrote: Alan Page wrote: Realistic wrote: I would argue Alan that if you said 'There is cyanide in that wine' and they chose to drink it, I don't think you would be responsible for the death, no. The same as if you gave (or sold) someone some rope, and they chose to make a noose and hang themselves, you would equally be not responsible.
But that is not what the law now says according the article above. "If a toxic substance is supplied to somebody and administered by that person to himself, the supplier cannot be held criminally responsible." No wonder drug dealers are getting away so easily.
But your example was 'lacing' a bottle of wine with a toxic substance, so the person had no knowledge of what they were taking so could not be responsible for their actions. The case in point in the article is someone knowingly taking methadone which is known to be dangerous. I don't think the two can be compared. Alcohol is a toxic substance. You can't very well track down everyone who has ever supplied alcohol to someone who dies from alcohol poisoning, and prosecute them, which it sounds like you are advocating.
No read the law carefully. A "TOXIC" substance. Alcohol is not fatally toxic in the same way as cyanide. What the law says to me is that if you were to knowingly spike a drink with cyanide and pass it onto somebody. You would NOT be liable for prosecution. A poisoner's charter. Either the Mail has got the law wrongly summarised or trendy lawyers need their arses kicked to cover up a massive loophole.
When I say "spike" I mean a bottle in a way that looks untampered.
But Methadone is not a toxic substance in the same way as cyanide either. It is a controlled (so is alcohol, but not in the same way).
If you spike in any covert way it is essentially the same, but not the same as handing someone (who knows what it is) methadone. The receiver takes the responsibility for imbibing it, not the 'supplier'.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
