Your Oxfordshire
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email »
Kidlington man's conviction quashed
9:21am Friday 8th August 2008
By Roots Rocker »
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.
Your Say YourOxford
Alan Page, Guildford says...
11:00am Fri 8 Aug 08
More libertarian **** to me.
Realistic, oxford says...
11:11am Fri 8 Aug 08
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.
Tasha, Witney says...
11:12am Fri 8 Aug 08
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.
MIKE, oxford says...
11:49am Fri 8 Aug 08
Alan Page, Oxford says...
1:42pm Fri 8 Aug 08
Alan Page, Guildford says...
2:04pm Fri 8 Aug 08
Realistic wrote:But that is not what the law now says according the article above.
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.
"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.
Alan Page, Guildford says...
2:06pm Fri 8 Aug 08
Tasha wrote:No "recreational drug user" if we are going to get all PC.
"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.
I think "junkie" is a more than adequate term.
Tom, says...
3:11pm Fri 8 Aug 08
Alan Page wrote:To call yourself Alan?
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.
paul, abingdon says...
4:16pm Fri 8 Aug 08
mike, oxfordshire says...
4:23pm Fri 8 Aug 08
Realistic, oxford says...
4:30pm Fri 8 Aug 08
Alan Page wrote: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.
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.
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, Guildford says...
12:11am Sat 9 Aug 08
Realistic wrote:No read the law carefully. A "TOXIC" substance. Alcohol is not fatally toxic in the same way as cyanide.
Alan Page wrote: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.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.
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.
Alan Page, Guildford says...
12:13am Sat 9 Aug 08
Alan Page wrote:When I say "spike" I mean a bottle in a way that looks untampered.
Realistic wrote: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.Alan Page wrote: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.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.
Mr Ison, England says...
2:40am Sat 9 Aug 08
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.
Realistic, Oxford says...
12:19pm Sat 9 Aug 08
Alan Page wrote: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).
Alan Page wrote:When I say "spike" I mean a bottle in a way that looks untampered.
Realistic wrote: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.Alan Page wrote: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.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.
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'.
Your sayYourOxford
Add your comment
Register for a FREE thisisoxfordshire account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.
Please register now or sign in below to continue.
Tom, says...
10:45am Fri 8 Aug 08