R V BLAUE

On 16th July 1975 an 18 year old girl was a victim of a stabbing, being stabbed four times after refusing the sexual advances of the defendant. She was admitted into hospital at 7:30pm, and was then examined at 8:30pm, where she was told the operation she was about to undergo required a blood transfusion. She refused to have a blood transfusion as it would be contrary to her beliefs, being a Jehovah’s Witness her faith precluded this. She was informed by the doctors that without a blood transfusion she would die, despite knowing this the victim still refused the treatment as a result of her religious conviction. The victim subsequently died at 12:45am the following day, and the defendant was charged with manslaughter by diminished responsibility. The defendant appealed.

The issue of the matter is the question of whether or not the victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment ritute a novus actus interveniens (break the chain of causation), between the defendant’s act and her death?

The appeal was dismissed-it was concluded that it was the stab wound and not the girl’s refusal to accept medical treatment was the cause of her death. The victim’s rejection of a blood transfusion on the basis of her faith did not break the chain of causation. In other words, the defendant must take and consider the victim in the state to which they found them, this includes their characteristics and beliefs, as well as their physical condition. In accordance to this case of omission by the victim, the ‘egg-shell skull’ rule (Doctrine that makes a defendant liable for the plaintiff's unforeseeable and uncommon reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional tort), was also applied. Taking into account the victim’s response was foreseeable, considering their particular characteristics.