Was Blaue decided correctly?

R v Blaue. The defendant stabbed an 18 year old girl four times when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him. The defendant’s conviction was upheld. The wound was still an operative cause of death (following R v Smith & R v Jordan) so no novus actus interveniens and Holland was still good law.

What does the case of RV Blaue 1975 show about legal causation?

R v Blaue (1975) 61 Cr App R 271 is an English criminal law appeal in which the Court of Appeal decided, being a court of binding precedent thus established, that the refusal of a Jehovah’s Witness to accept a blood transfusion after being stabbed did not constitute an intervening act for the purposes of legal …

Does refusing blood transfusion break the chain of causation?

The victim’s rejection of a blood transfusion did not break the chain of causation. The defendant must take their victim as they find them and this includes the characteristics and beliefs of the victim and not just their physical condition.

Does refusing medical treatment break the chain of causation?

(1) Medical treatment will not break the chain of causation simply because V would not have died but for the bad treatment. The injuries inflicted by D need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of the death, provided they made a significant contribution to it.

Does euthanasia break the chain of causation?

The defendant argued that the act of voluntary euthanasia, as a free, deliberate and informed decision, represented a novus actus interveniens, thus breaking the chain of causation in a case in which the victim would otherwise have survived.

What is the doctrine of transferred malice?

The doctrine of transferred malice applies where the mens rea of one offence can be transferred to another. For example, suppose A shoots at B intending to kill B, but misses and hits and kills C. Transferred malice can operate so that the mens rea of A (intention to kill B) can be transferred to the killing of C.

What is diminished responsibility?

diminished responsibility, legal doctrine that absolves an accused person of part of the liability for his criminal act if he suffers from such abnormality of mind as to substantially impair his responsibility in committing or being a party to an alleged violation.

What is the thin skull rule in law?

The principle that dictates that a defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm or loss to the claimant even where it is of a more significant extent than would have been expected, due to a pre-existing condition or circumstance of the claimant.

Can a defendant be guilty of an omission?

The actus reus can be committed by an omission where there exists a duty imposed by law. There are three situations in which a duty may be imposed by law. These are where the defendant creates a dangerous situation, where there has been a voluntary assumption of responsibility and misconduct in a public office.

When can medical negligence Break chain of causation?

Novus actus interveniens in medical negligence cases is when an unforeseeable event occurs after a neglectful act which intervenes and worsens the effects. This is known as “breaking the chain of causation” and often means the defendant will not be found liable – even if it can be proved that they acted negligently.

What happened in the case of Roberts 1971?

After a party the male defendant R, gave the female victim a lift in his automobile. The defendant was charged with sexual assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was convicted at trial of assault occasioning actual bodily harm but acquitted of sexual assault.

What are the limits of transferred malice?

Scholars have suggested different criteria such as physical and immediate harm to the actual object, remoteness of the actual harm from the harm intended, and foreseeability as to the actual harm.

What is the Blaue V Blaues case?

Robert Konrad Blaue R v Blaue (1975) 61 Cr App R 271 is an English criminal law appeal in which the Court of Appeal decided, being a court of binding precedent thus established, that the refusal of a Jehovah’s Witness to accept a blood transfusion after being stabbed did not constitute an intervening act for the purposes of legal causation.

What is the chain of causation in are v Blaue?

R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 Chain of Causation – Manslaughter – Novus Actus Interveniens – Victim’s Own Act – Egg shell Skull Rule Facts After the victim refused the defendant’s sexual advances the defendant stabbed the victim four times. Whist the victim was admitted to hospital she required medical treatment which involved a blood transfusion.

What was the outcome of the 61 Cr App your 271 case?

Is 56 Cr App your 95 applicable because of an omission?

Whether the test laid down in R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 was to be applied because of an omission on behalf of the victim. The appeal was dismissed. The stab wound and not the girl’s refusal to accept medical treatment was the operating cause of death. The victim’s rejection of a blood transfusion did not break the chain of causation.