Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

R v Blaue - 1975

359 words (1 pages) Case Summary

25th Oct 2021 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Legal Case Summary

R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411

Chain of Causation – Manslaughter – Novus Actus Interveniens – Victim’s Own Act – Egg shell Skull Rule


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.


Did the victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment ritute 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.

Decision / Outcome

The appeal was dismissed.  The stab wound and not the girl’s refusal to accept medical treatment was the operating cause of death.  The victim’s rejection of a blood transfusion did not break the chain of causation.  The defendant must take their victim as they find them and this includes the characteristics and beliefs of the victim and not just their physical condition.  Unlike in R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 the victim’s decision was an omission and not a positive act and so the test was not of whether the omission was reasonably foreseeable.  In the case of omissions by the victim ‘egg-shell skull’ rule was to be applied.  Even if R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 is applied the victim’s response was foreseeable taking into account their particular characteristics.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles