R V Blaue - summary notes for case PDF

Preview

Summary

summary notes for case...

Description

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

1. What dogs are banned under this Act? (a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier; (b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa (c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose. 2. To which parts of the UK does this Act apply? England, Wales, Scotland and Nornthen Ireland. 3. What are the penalties for committing an offence under s3(1)? (a)14 years if a person dies as a result of being injured; (b)5 years in any other case where a person is injured; (c)3 years in any case where an assistance dog is injured (whether or not it dies)

R. v Blaue. 1.

Title and citation: R v Blaue [1975] 3 All ER 446

2. Parties: Claimant—The crown-Regina (respondent) / Defendant—Blaue (Appellant) 3.

Court: COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION

4.

Material 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. The victim was a Jehovah’s Witness whose religious views precluded accepting a blood transfusion. She was informed that without a blood transfusion she would die but still refused to countenance treatment as a result of her religious conviction. The victim subsequently died and the defendant was charged with manslaughter by way of diminished responsibility. The defendant appealed. 5. The defendant stabbed an 18 year old girl four times when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him. She was a practising Jehovah's witness and refused to have a blood transfusion which would have saved her life. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and appealed arguing that the girl's refusal to accept the blood transfusion was a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation, alternatively that Holland was no longer good law. 6.

Cases: R v Smith & R v Jordan

7.

Reasoning

Issues—Did the victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment was a novus actus interveniens and so break the chain of causation between the defendant’s act and her death? 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.

8. Held: The defendant's conviction was upheld. The wound was still an operative and substantial cause of her death (following R v Smith & R v Jordan) so no novus actus interveniens....