Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 April 1976 |
| Author | J. C. Wood |
| Published date | 01 April 1976 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X7604900207 |
| Subject Matter | Recent Judicial Decisions |
PROFESSOR
J.
C.
WOOD,
C.B.E.,
LL.M.
The University
of
Sheffield
Legal Correspondent
of
The Police Journal
RECENT JUDICIAL DECISIONS
RELIGIOUS SCRUPLES
R. v. Blaue
[1975]
IW.L.R.
1411
Court
of
Appeal
Blaue stabbed a young girl
of
18.She was a Jehovah's Witness. One
of
the four stab wounds pierced her lung. She
ran
into the road from
her home and collapsed. At the hospital it was decided
that
surgery
was needed, proceeded by a blood transfusion. She gathered what
was being arranged and categorically refused to allow a transfusion,
putting this refusal in writing even though she was told
that
the
alternative was death. She died, even though medical evidence was
clear
that
ablood transfusion would have saved her life.
Blaue was charged with murder
but
was convicted
of
manslaughter
on the ground
of
diminished responsibility. He was also convicted
of
wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and indecentassault.
The prisoner appealed on the ground
that
the trial Judge had not
properly directed the jury on the issue of causation. He had told the
jury
that
it was a matter for their common sense and had referred
them to decided cases, especially R. v. Holland (1841) 2 Mood. &R.
351
which he told them gave them little option
but
to decide
that
the
stab wound was the operative cause of death.
Thejudgment
of
Lawton, L.J., in the Court
of
Appeal took the line
that
R. v. Holland decided
that
an accused could not defend himself
by arguing
that
the victim could have avoided death by taking greater
care
of
himself. This nineteenth century approach has been con-
sidered in two recent cases - R. v. Jordan (1956) 40 Cr. App. R. 152
and R. v. Smith
[1959]
2 Q.B. 35. This first of these cases has been
criticized but decided, probably rightly, said Lawton, L.J., that where
the wound was almost healed abnormal medical treatment did break
the chain
of
causation. But R. v. Smith emphasized that if the wound
was an operating cause at the time of death the chain was
not
broken
by some other cause, such as careless treatment.
The
Court
of
Appeal followed R. v. Smith. The alternative argu-
ment,
that
the jury should be left to decide whether the subsequent
cause was unreasonable, was rejected.
It
was pointed out
that
the
rule in civil
law-where
compensation is sought, is different. There
the test of foreseeability means
that
he is entitled to expect the victim
122
April
/975
To continue reading
Request your trial