The defendant and the victim, who were both alleged to be addicted to drugs, both took a quantity of LSD late on 16 September 1967.

On the morning of the 18th he booked out of his hotel and left the country, before the victim was found the next day with haemorrhaging of the brain, and evidence of asphyxiation.

The jury accepted that he had no intention to murder or commit grievous bodily harm, but nevertheless convicted him of manslaughter, on the direction of the judge that it would suffice for the prosecution to prove: "He must have realised before he got himself into the condition he did by taking the drugs that acts such as those he subsequently performed and which resulted in the death were dangerous.

"[1]The defendant appealed, alleging the judge should have directed the jury to convict only if the prosecution could prove he had the requisite intention to carry out acts which were likely to result in harm.

Widgery LJ held that this was not the case, stating that: All that the judgment in Church's case says in terms is that whereas, formerly, a killing by any unlawful act amounted to manslaughter, this consequence does not now inexorably follow unless the unlawful act is one in which ordinary sober and responsible people would recognise the existence of risk.