Court of Appeal
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018318792773 |
| Published date | 01 August 2018 |
| Author | Tony Storey |
| Date | 01 August 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
The Journal of Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 82(4) 292–295
Court of Appeal
ª The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022018318792773
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
Voluntary Acts and the Chain of Causation
in Homicide Cases: The Need for
‘Free and Unfettered Volition’
R v Wallace [2018] EWCA Crim 690
Berlinah Wallace (W) and Mark van Dongen (M) had been together for around five years, and lived in
W’s flat in Bristol. However, by August 2015 their relationship had broken down and M had moved
out of the flat and started a new relationship. One night in September 2015, M went to W’s flat at her
request. They argued, and W said that she was going to stay in a hotel for a few days. M decided to stay
the night in W’s flat. During the night, W returned to the flat. At around 3 am, M was asleep in bed,
wearing only boxer shorts. He awoke to hear W laughing as she said ‘If I can’t have you, no-one else
will’, and then poured a glass of sulphuric acid over M’s face. The acid splashed onto his upper body
and then his lower body as he moved. M ran, screaming for help, into the street. Neighbours who had
been awoken by M’s screams provided assistance until the police and paramedics arrived to take M to
Southmead Hospital in Bristol.
M was kept in the hospital for 14 months. He had suffered burns to 25 per cent of his body and, after
skin grafts, some 40 per cent of his body was affected. His face, chest and arms were ‘grotesquely’
scarred. He lost the sight in his left eye and most of the sight in his right eye. His lower left leg was
amputated. After he had regained consciousness, he was almost totally paralysed, unable to move
anything other than his tongue. His physical condition improved a little and he regained his speech but
he remained paralysed from the neck down, and in a ‘permanent state of unbearable constant physical
and psychological pain that could not be ameliorated by his doctors’ (at [3]).
In November 2016, after an abortive attempt to transfer M to a care home, M’s father hired a private
ambulance and drove him to Belgium, where he lived, and admitted him to St. Maria Hospital in
Overpelt. After being told that his condition (in particular the near-total paralysis) was permanent, in
December 2016 M applied for euthanasia under Belgian law (the Belgian Act on Euthanasia of 28 May
2002). After waiting for the minimum 30-day period prescribed under the Belgian statute, a lethal
injection was administered in January 2017.
After M’s death, W was charged with two counts: (1) murder and (2) throwing a corrosive fluid with
intent to burn, maim, disfigure, disable or to do grievous bodily harm, contrary to s. 29 of the Offences
against the Person Act 1861. She appeared before HHJ May and a jury at Bristol Crown Court in
November 2017. However, at the close of the prosecution case, the trial judge accepted a defence plea
of no case to answer in respect of the murder charge. HHJ May ruled that M’s request for euthanasia, and
the actions of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial