R V Blaue Essay
R v Blaue
Criminal Law 01: Actus Reus
Facts
The defendant inflicted serious stab wounds on the deceased who, knowing she would be likely to die as a result, refused a blood transfusion because she was a
Jehovah's Witness and accepting another's blood was against her religion. The defendant claimed that her refusal to accept the blood transfusion broke the chain of causation between his conduct and her death.
Extract
There have been two cases in recent years which have some bearing on this topic: R v
Jordan and R v Smith. In R v Jordan the Court of Criminal Appeal, after conviction, admitted some medical evidence which went to prove that the cause of death was not the blow relied on by the prosecution but abnormal medical …show more content…
It has long been the policy of the law that those who use violence on other people must take their victims as they find them. This in our judgment means the whole man, not just the physical man. It does not lie in the mouth of the assailant to say that his victim's religious beliefs which inhibited him from accepting certain kinds of treatment were unreasonable. The question for decision is what caused her death. The answer is the stab wound. The fact that the victim refused to stop this end coming about did not break the causal connection between the act and death.
If a victim's personal representatives claim compensation for his death the concept of foreseeability can operate in favour of the wrongdoer in the assessment of such compensation; the wrong doer is entitled to expect his victim to mitigate his damage by accepting treatment of a normal kind: see Steele v R George & Co Ltd. As counsel for the Crown pointed out, the criminal law is concerned with the maintenance of law and order and the protection of the public generally. A policy of the common law applicable to the settlement of tortious liability between subjects may not be, and in our judgment is not, appropriate for the criminal
Criminal Law 01: Actus Reus
Facts
The defendant inflicted serious stab wounds on the deceased who, knowing she would be likely to die as a result, refused a blood transfusion because she was a
Jehovah's Witness and accepting another's blood was against her religion. The defendant claimed that her refusal to accept the blood transfusion broke the chain of causation between his conduct and her death.
Extract
There have been two cases in recent years which have some bearing on this topic: R v
Jordan and R v Smith. In R v Jordan the Court of Criminal Appeal, after conviction, admitted some medical evidence which went to prove that the cause of death was not the blow relied on by the prosecution but abnormal medical …show more content…
It has long been the policy of the law that those who use violence on other people must take their victims as they find them. This in our judgment means the whole man, not just the physical man. It does not lie in the mouth of the assailant to say that his victim's religious beliefs which inhibited him from accepting certain kinds of treatment were unreasonable. The question for decision is what caused her death. The answer is the stab wound. The fact that the victim refused to stop this end coming about did not break the causal connection between the act and death.
If a victim's personal representatives claim compensation for his death the concept of foreseeability can operate in favour of the wrongdoer in the assessment of such compensation; the wrong doer is entitled to expect his victim to mitigate his damage by accepting treatment of a normal kind: see Steele v R George & Co Ltd. As counsel for the Crown pointed out, the criminal law is concerned with the maintenance of law and order and the protection of the public generally. A policy of the common law applicable to the settlement of tortious liability between subjects may not be, and in our judgment is not, appropriate for the criminal