## Facts

- Two Glasgow shopkeepers were indicted under Scots common law for culpably, wilfully, and recklessly supplying solvents and containers to named children under 16 for inhalation, allegedly endangering the children’s health and lives.
- The goods were lawful items (e.g., petroleum-based glue and plastic bags/tubes), but allegedly sold in combinations designed to facilitate inhalation.
- The prosecution alleged the shopkeepers knew the purchasers were under 16 and knew the items were intended for glue-sniffing with serious risk of harm.
- Police had warned the shopkeepers to stop supplying such combinations to children; the conduct allegedly continued.
- The indictment also charged reset (receiving stolen goods), alleging the shopkeepers took stolen items from some of the children in exchange for solvents as part of an ongoing course of conduct.
- The case arose on preliminary objections challenging the relevancy and specification of the indictment before trial.

## Issues

1. Whether supplying otherwise lawful materials to children, with knowledge and purpose that they will be used for harmful inhalation, states a crime at Scots common law.
2. Whether the children’s voluntary inhalation breaks causation as a novus actus interveniens as a matter of law.
3. Whether the indictment gave fair notice, including (a) adequate specification of the children’s ages for the solvent-supply charge and (b) adequate specification of the reset charge spanning a broad time period.

## Decision

- The High Court of Justiciary held the solvent-supply charge disclosed a known common-law crime: culpable and reckless conduct causing real injury to another.
- The court rejected a categorical distinction between “administration” of a dangerous substance and “supply” where supply is made to facilitate harmful use with the requisite knowledge and recklessness.
- The court held the children’s voluntary inhalation did not necessarily break the chain of causation; whether supply caused injury was for the jury.
- On specification, the court found the solvent-supply charge required amendment to provide each child’s date of birth for fair notice, though age was not essential to relevancy.
- The court upheld the reset charge as relevant and sufficiently specified, allowing substantial latitude in time for a course-of-conduct allegation where the items were identified.
- Subject to amendment of the first charge to cure the age-notice defect, the appeals were refused and the indictment’s relevancy sustained.

## Legal Principles

- Common-law criminal liability can attach to supplying lawful items where the supplier acts culpably and recklessly, knowing and intending the items be used to cause serious self-injury, particularly to children.
- Courts may apply established categories of common-law crime to new fact patterns without requiring an identical prior precedent.
- A victim’s voluntary self-harming act does not automatically constitute a novus actus interveniens; causation can remain a jury question when the accused’s conduct materially facilitates the harm.
- Fair notice may require added specification (e.g., dates of birth) even if the omitted detail is not an element necessary for relevancy.
- For course-of-conduct charges (including repeated reset), indictments may cover a broad period if the substance of the allegation and the relevant items or conduct are sufficiently identified.

## Conclusion

The court held that knowingly facilitating children’s glue-sniffing by supplying solvent “kits” can fall within Scots common-law culpable and reckless conduct causing injury, that voluntariness of the children’s inhalation does not bar causation as a matter of law, and that only limited amendment was needed to ensure fair notice on the children’s ages while the reset charge remained adequately specified.


Khaliq v. Her Majesty’s Advocate, 1983 S.C.C.R. 483 (Scot. High Ct. Just. 1983)