TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Case Problem 1 Skeleton Argument 3 R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 4 R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 10 R v Dear [1996] Crim LR 595 20 R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 30 COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION R -v- Walcott Jamie Stevens was the leader of a gang of white youths, the “Leamington lads”, who were suspected of being involved in a number of racially motivated assaults. A group of black youths, the “Cov demons” including Eddie Walcott, decided to take revenge for these assaults by attacking Mr Stevens and his gang. In the course of the fight, Mr Walcott, who was armed with a knife, stabbed Mr Stevens in the stomach. Although Mr Steven’s injury was serious, there is medical evidence that it would not have been life-threatening had he received prompt hospital treatment. Mr Stevens, however, refused to go to the hospital because he was disgusted at the prospect of being touched or attended to by black medical staff. He was also afraid that he would be recognised as the perpetrator of various serious assaults on black medical staff near the hospital. Mr Stevens therefore received no medical treatment and subsequently died of his injury. Mr Walcott was charged with Mr Stevens’ murder. At trial, Mr Justice Gravel relied on the case of R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 in directing the jury. He directed them to consider that if the initial stab wound could be regarded as the operative cause of Mr Stevens’ subsequent death, then Mr Walcott would be guilty of murder. He further instructed them to disregard Mr Stevens’ refusal to seek medical treatment and his unmeritorious reasons for doing so, if this operative cause was found. 1 The appeal is brought on the following grounds and is limited to the direction Mr Justice Gravel gave to the jury: (1) The present case was distinguishable from Blaue which was concerned with situations where the victim had valid reasons for refusing particular medical treatment. Different considerations applied where there was an unreasonable refusal to seek any medical treatment and where the reasons for doing so were unconnected to the nature of the medical treatment. (2) It was open to a properly directed jury to conclude that Mr Stevens had voluntarily chosen to bring about his death and that his conduct amounted to a novus actus interveniens which broke the chain of causation and relieved Mr Walcott from criminal liability for Mr Stevens’ death. 2 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT BETWEEN: EDDIE WALCOTT (APPELLANT) -v- REGINA (RESPONDENT) Appearing on 13th January 2020 Submitted by Counsel for the Respondent In response to the first ground of appeal, Counsel respectfully submits: 1. As per R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411, an assailant was not entitled to claim that the victim’s refusal of treatment was unreasonable; the thin skull rule applies. Accordingly, Blaue is indistinguishable. 2. Same considerations on legal causation as established in R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 apply even when the victim’s refusal is allegedly unreasonable – insofar the appellant’s conduct is a substantial and operative cause, there is causation in law. In response to the second ground of appeal, Counsel respectfully submits: 1. As established in cases such as R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411, refusal to have medical treatment necessary to save one’s life does not constitute a break in the chain of causation (a novus actus interveniens). 2. In the present case, there is no break in the causal connection between the stab wound and Mr Stevens’ death. Hence, it was not a misdirection for Gravel J to instruct the jury to disregard Mr Stevens’ refusal to seek medical treatment, meaning the appellant’s conviction should be upheld. Counsel for the Respondent cites the following authorities: Cases: 1. R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411 2. R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844 3. R v Dear [1996] Crim LR 595 4. R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35 Counsel respectfully invites the court to dismiss the appeal Lead Counsel: Ms Charlotte Chan Junior Counsel: Ms Melanie Mills 3 The Weekly Law Reports, November 7, 1975 1411 1 W.L.R. Reg. v. Thames Magistrate, Ex p. Brindle (C.A.) Roskill L.J. A alleged offender is to be dealt with after he has been taken into custody. Though this is correct as a fact, it is by no means conclusive in favour of Lord Gifford's suggested construction of the subsection. It seems to me plain that the purpose of this section is to enable forces to which the Act applies to have control over deserters and absentees without leave from those forces, irrespective of where those persons were at the time they deserted or went absent. What is to happen to those deserters or absentees B after they are taken into custody is a matter for those forces and not for the courts of this country. This is the underlying purpose of this Part of this Act. Lord Gifford referred us to Reg. v. Peterson, Ex parte Hartmann [1969] V.R. 417, a decision of Newton J. in the Supreme Court of Victoria. That was a decision regarding the true construction of the Defence (Visiting Q Forces) Act 1963 of Australia. It is sufficient to say this of this decision: first, it was a decision upon a different statute from that with which we are concerned; secondly, the language of the Australian statute differs in a number of important respects from the language of the Act of 1952. The long title is different; and the section comparable with section 13 of the English Act does not contain any reference to legislation such as the Army Act 1955. It would be out of place in this court to express any view D whether one agreed or disagreed with a decision of a distinguished Com• monwealth judge upon the construction of a Commonwealth statute. I think that decision is clearly distinguishable. Although Lord Gifford was able to point to various statements in textbooks, including Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd ed., vol. 33, p. 854, and footnotes in Stone's Justices' Manual, 170th ed., vol. 1, p. 1063, to support his submission, I am afraid that, as a result of our decision, those passages will have to be rewritten. I would dismiss the appeal. ORMROD LJ. I agree with both the judgments which have been delivered in this court and the judgments in the Divisional Court and have nothing to add. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed. p Appeal dismissed. Solicitors: Huntley, Millard & Co., Bromley; Treasury Solicitor. A. H. B. G [COURT OF APPEAL] * REGINA v. BLAUE 1975 June 23; Lawton L.J., Thompson July 16 and Shaw J J. H Crime—Homicide—Causation—Stab wound penetrating lung— Blood transfusion necessary to save life—Refusal on ground of religious beliefs—Whether stab wound operative cause of death —Whether test of reasonableness applicable The defendant stabbed a young woman of 18 with a knife, which penetrated her lung. She was taken to hospital where she was told that a blood transfusion and surgery were neces• sary to save her life. She refused to have a blood transfusion on the ground that it was contrary to her religious beliefs as 4 The Weekly Law Reports, November 7, 1975 1412 Reg. v. Blaue (C.A.) [1975] a Jehovah's Witness and she died the following day. The j^ cause of death was bleeding into the pleural cavity, which would not have been fatal if she had accepted medical treat• ment when advised to do so. The defendant was charged with murder. The judge, in directing the jury on the issue of causation, said that they might think that they had little option but to find that the stab wounds were still an operative or substantial cause of death when the victim died. The defen• dant was convicted of manslaughter on the ground of dimin- g ished responsibility. On appeal against conviction: — Held, dismissing the appeal, that the death of the victim was caused by loss of blood as a result of the stab wounds inflicted by the defendant and the fact that she had refused a blood transfusion did not break the causal connection between the stabbing and the death; that, since the criminal law did not require the victim to mitigate her injuries, and since Q an assailant was not entitled to claim that the victim's refusal of medical treatment because of her religious beliefs was unreasonable, the jury were entitled to find that the stab wounds were an operative or substantial cause of death. Dicta of Maule J. in Reg. v. Holland (1841) 2 Mood. & R. 351, 352 and Lord Parker C.J. in Reg. v. Smith [1959] 2 Q.B. 35, 42, C.-M.A.C. applied. Reg. v. Jordan (1956) 40 Cr.App.R. 152, CCA. distin- D guished. The following cases are referred to in the judgment of the court: Reg. v. Holland (1841) 2 Mood. & R. 351. Reg. v. Jordan (1956) 40 Cr.App.R. 152, CCA. Reg. v. Smith [1959] 2 Q.B. 35; [1959] 2 W.L.R. 623; [1959] 2 All E.R. 193, C.-M.A.C. E Steele v. Robert George & Co. (1937) Ltd. [1942] A.C 497; [1942] 1 All E.R. 447, H.L.(E.). The following additional cases were cited in argument: Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Shatwell [1965] A.C. 656; [1964] 3 W.L.R.

Load more

Table of Contents