Skip to document
Welcome to StudocuSign in to access the best study resources
Guest user
0followers
Upload
HomeMy LibraryAsk AI
  • You don't have any recent items yet.
My Library
  • You don't have any courses yet.
  • You don't have any books yet.
  • You don't have any Studylists yet.

R v Blaue [1975] EWCA Crim 3 (16 July 1975)

idk idk idk idk idk diiajasn jadsbfabs
Course

Research Project (LQB7001)

17 Documents
Students shared 17 documents in this course
Academic year: 2013/2014
Uploaded by:
Anonymous Student
This document has been uploaded by a student, just like you, who decided to remain anonymous.
Universiti Malaya

Comments

Please sign in or register to post comments.

Students also viewed

Related documents

Preview text

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Court of

Appeal (Criminal Division)

Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> R v Blaue [1975] EWCA Crim 3 (16 July 1975) URL: bailii/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1975/3.html Cite as: 139 JP 841, [1975] 3 All ER 446, [1975] EWCA Crim 3, 61 Cr App Rep 271, [1975] WLR 1411, [1975] 1 WLR 1411

[New search] [Context ] [Printable version] [Buy ICLR report: [1975] 1 WLR 1411] [Help]

JISCBAILII_CASE_CRIME

BAILII Citation Number: [1975] EWCA Crim 3 Case No. 4512/C/

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice, 16th July 1975.

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE LAWTON MR. JUSTICE THOMPSON and MR. JUSTICE SHAW

R E G I N A

-v-

ROBERT KONRAD BLAUE

____________________

MR. J. COMYN, Q. and MR. R. M. STEWART appeared as Counsel for the Appellant. MR. D. HERROD, Q. AND MR. FENWICK appeared as Counsel for the Crown. ____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT ____________________

Crown Copyright ©

LORD JUSTICE LAWTON : On 17th October, 1974 at Teesside Crown Court after a trial before Mocatta, J. the Appellant was acquitted of the murder of a girl named Jacolyn Woodhead but was convicted of her manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility (count 1). He was also convicted of wounding this girl with intent to do her grievous bodily harm (count 2) and of indecently assaulting her (count 3). He pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting two other women (counts 4 and 5)-

He was sentenced to life imprisonment on counts 1 and 2 and to concurrent sentences of twelve months' imprisonment on counts 3, 4 and 5.

He appeals with the leave of this Court against his conviction on count 1 and, if his appeal is successful, he applies for leave to appeal against his sentence on count 2.

The victim was a young girl aged eighteen. She was a Jehovah's Witness. She professed the tenets of that sect and lived her life by them. During the late afternoon of 3rd May, 1974 the Appellant came into her house and asked her for sexual intercourse. She refused. He then attacked her with a knife inflicting four serious wounds. One pierced her lung. The Appellant ran away. The girl staggered out into the road. She collapsed outside a neighbour's house. An ambulance took her to hospital, where she arrived at about 7 p. Soon afterwards she was admitted to the intensive care ward. At about 8 p. she was examined by the surgical registrar who quickly decided that serious injury had been caused which would require surgery. As she had lost a lot of blood, before there could be an operation there would have to be a blood transfusion. As soon as the girl appreciated that the surgeon was thinking of organising a blood transfusion for her, she said that she should not be given one and that she would not have one. To have one, she said, would be contrary to her religious beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. She was told that if she did not have a blood transfusion she would die. She said that she did not care if she did die. She was asked to acknowledge in writing that she had refused to have a blood transfusion under any circumstances. She did so. The prosecution admitted at the trial that had she had a blood transfusion when advised to have one she would not have died. She did so at 12 a. the next day. The evidence called by the prosecution proved that at all relevant times she was conscious and decided as she did deliberately, and knowing what the consequences of her decision would be. In his final speech to the jury, Mr. Herrod for the prosecution accepted that the girl's refusal to have a blood transfusion was a cause of her death. The prosecution did not challenge the defence evidence that the Appellant was suffering from diminished responsibility.

Towards the end of the trial and before the summing-up started Counsel on both sides made submissions as to how the case should be put to the jury. Counsel then appearing for the Appellant invited the judge to direct the jury to acquit the Appellant generally on the count of murder. His argument was that the girl's refusal to have a blood transfusion had broken the chain of causation between the stabbing and her death. As an alternative he submitted that the jury should be left to decide whether the chain of causation had been broken. Mr. Herrod submitted that the Judge should direct the jury to convict, because no facts were in issue and when the law was applied to the facts there was only one possible verdict, viz. manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility.

When the Judge came to direct the jury on this issue he did so by telling them that they should apply their common-sense. He then went on to tell them they would get some help from the cases to which Counsel had referred in their speeches. He reminded them of what Lord Parker, C., had said in R. v. Smith, reported in (1959) 43 Criminal Appeal Reports at page 121 and what Maule J. had said 133 years before in R. v. Holland, reported in (1841) 2 M and R Ch. 351. He placed particular reliance on what the latter Judge had said. The jury, he said, might find it "most material and most helpful". He went on: "This is one of those relatively rare cases, you may think, with very little option open to you but to reach the conclusion that was reached by your predecessors as members of the jury in the Queen against Holland, namely 'yes' to the question of causation that the stabb was still, at the time of this girl's death, the operative cause of death - or a substantial cause of death. However, that is a matter for you to determine after you have withdrawn to consider your verdict." Mr. Comyn has criticised that direction on three grounds: first, because Holland should no longer be considered good law; secondly, because Smith, when rightly understood, does envisage the possibility of unreasonable conduct on the part of the victim breaking the chain of causation; and thirdly because the Judge in reality directed the jury to find causation proved although he used words which seemed to leave the issue open for them to decide.

In Holland, the defendant in the course of a violent assault, had injured one of his victim's fingers. A surgeon had advised amputation because of danger to life through complications developing. The advice was rejected. A fortnight later the victim died of lockjaw. "The real question is", said Maule, J., "whether in the end the wound inflicted by the prisoner was the cause of death." That distinguished Judge left the jury to decide that question as did the Judge in this case. They had to decide it as juries

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 wrongdoer is entitled to expect his victim to mitigate his damage by accepting treatment of a normal kind. See Stelle v. R. George and Co. Ltd., (1942) Appeal Cases, 497. As Mr. Herrod 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 law.

The issue of the cause of death in a trial for either murder or manslaughter is one of fact for the jury to decide. But if, as in this case, there is no conflict of evidence and all the jury has to do is to apply the law to the admitted facts, the Judge is entitled to tell the jury what the result of that application will be. In this case the Judge would have been entitled to have told the jury that the Appellant's stab wound was an operative cause of death. The appeal fails.

(Counsel asked the Court to certify that there was a point of law of general public importance in this case)

LORD JUSTICE LAWTON: We have given consideration to your submission, Mr. Comyn, and we have come to the conclusion that this does not come within the terms of the Act because in our judgment what we have decided is settled law, and it has been settled for a long time. Accordingly we refuse to certify.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: bailii/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1975/3.html

Was this document helpful?

R v Blaue [1975] EWCA Crim 3 (16 July 1975)

Course: Research Project (LQB7001)

17 Documents
Students shared 17 documents in this course

University: Universiti Malaya

Was this document helpful?
28/03/2022, 15:16
R v Blaue [1975] EWCA Crim 3 (16 July 1975)
www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1975/3.html&query=title(r near blaue)
1/4
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help]
[Feedback]
England and Wales Court of
Appeal (Criminal Division)
Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> R v Blaue [1975]
EWCA Crim 3 (16 July 1975)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1975/3.html
Cite as: 139 JP 841, [1975] 3 All ER 446, [1975] EWCA Crim 3, 61 Cr App Rep 271, [1975] WLR 1411, [1975] 1 WLR 1411
[New search] [Context ] [Printable version] [Buy ICLR report: [1975] 1 WLR 1411] [Help]
JISCBAILII_CASE_CRIME
BAILII Citation Number: [1975] EWCA Crim 3
Case No. 4512/C/74
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice,
16th July 1975.
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE LAWTON MR. JUSTICE THOMPSON
and
MR. JUSTICE SHAW
____________________
R E G I N A
-v-
ROBERT KONRAD BLAUE
____________________
MR. J. COMYN, Q.C. and MR. R. M. STEWART appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR. D. HERROD, Q.C. AND MR. FENWICK appeared as Counsel for the Crown.
____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE LAWTON: On 17th October, 1974 at Teesside Crown Court after a trial before
Mocatta, J. the Appellant was acquitted of the murder of a girl named Jacolyn Woodhead but was
convicted of her manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility (count 1). He was also
convicted of wounding this girl with intent to do her grievous bodily harm (count 2) and of indecently
assaulting her (count 3). He pleaded guilty to indecently assaulting two other women (counts 4 and 5)-

Students also viewed

Related documents