Skip to content
Home » R v Blaue [1975] 

R v Blaue [1975] 

The case of R v Blaue is a landmark decision in English criminal law that explores the principles of causation in homicide and the application of the “thin skull rule.” The judgement clarified the extent to which a victim’s actions, particularly omissions such as refusing medical treatment, may or may not break the chain of causation between the defendant’s unlawful act and the eventual death of the victim. This case is widely studied for its contribution to the doctrine of legal causation, especially in relation to the scope of the egg-shell skull principle, which extends beyond physical vulnerabilities to encompass personal beliefs and characteristics.

Citation and Court

  • Case citation: R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411; (1975) 61 Cr App R 271.
  • Court: Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
  • Judges: Lawton LJ and others.
  • Procedural posture: Appeal against a conviction of manslaughter, following the defendant’s argument that the victim’s refusal of treatment broke the causal link between the stabbing and her death.

Facts of R v Blaue Case

The defendant, Robert Konrad Blaue, entered the home of an eighteen-year-old woman, Jacolyn Woodhead, and asked her for sex. When she refused, he stabbed her four times, one of the stab wounds penetrating her lung. Medical professionals determined that her injuries were treatable but required immediate surgery and a blood transfusion.

The victim, however, was a Jehovah’s Witness and her religious beliefs strictly prohibited the acceptance of blood transfusions. Despite being informed by doctors that she would die without the transfusion, she refused treatment. Consequently, she succumbed to her injuries.

The prosecution conceded that had she consented to the transfusion, she would have survived. Nonetheless, they argued that the stabbing remained the operative cause of her death. The defendant was prosecuted for manslaughter, his responsibility for murder having already been reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility.

Legal Issue

The principal issue in R v Blaue was:

  • Did the victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment amount to a novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act) sufficient to break the chain of causation between the defendant’s act of stabbing and her subsequent death?

In essence, the court had to determine whether the victim’s refusal of treatment transferred liability away from the defendant.

Arguments in R v Blaue

Defence Arguments

The defence contended that:

  1. The refusal of a blood transfusion constituted a novus actus interveniens, which was the immediate cause of death.
  2. Since the victim could have survived had she accepted treatment, her death was the result of her own choice rather than the defendant’s act.
  3. Consequently, the defendant should not be held criminally liable for the death but only for the unlawful wounding.

Prosecution Arguments

The prosecution responded by stating that:

  1. The stabbing was the operative and substantial cause of death.
  2. The refusal of medical treatment did not absolve the defendant of liability.
  3. Under the thin skull rule, the defendant must take the victim as he finds her, including her religious beliefs and personal characteristics.

Decision in R v Blaue

The Court of Appeal, led by Lawton LJ, dismissed the appeal and upheld the manslaughter conviction. The judgement firmly established that the victim’s refusal of a blood transfusion did not break the chain of causation.

Reasoning of the Court in R v Blaue

  1. Causation
    • The stabbing was the operative and substantial cause of death.
    • The victim’s refusal of treatment was an omission rather than a positive act, and therefore could not be regarded as a novus actus interveniens in the legal sense.
  2. Egg-Shell Skull Rule
    • Lawton LJ invoked the egg-shell skull principle, stating that “those who use violence on others must take their victims as they find them.”
    • This rule applies not only to physical weaknesses but also to the religious and psychological characteristics of the victim.
  3. Public Policy Consideration
    • Allowing the chain of causation to be broken in such circumstances would permit defendants to evade responsibility simply because their victims made decisions influenced by personal beliefs.
    • Public policy required that liability remain with the person who initiated the violence.
  4. Comparisons with Previous Case Law
    • The defence sought to rely on R v Roberts [1971], where the test for novus actus interveniens involved assessing whether the victim’s act was reasonably foreseeable.
    • The court distinguished the case, noting that Roberts concerned a victim’s positive act (jumping from a moving vehicle), while R v Blaue involved an omission.
    • In cases of omissions, the egg-shell skull rule was the appropriate test, not the foreseeability standard.

Conclusion

The case of R v Blaue remains a landmark authority on causation in criminal law. It reaffirms that offenders must take their victims as they find them, including their religious convictions, personal characteristics, and vulnerabilities. The decision demonstrates that the refusal of medical treatment, even when life-saving, does not break the chain of causation between an unlawful act and the victim’s death.

By extending the egg-shell skull rule to include non-physical attributes, the Court of Appeal ensured that public policy favoured accountability for violent acts. While subject to debate, the ruling underscores a fundamental principle of justice: those who inflict harm cannot avoid liability by pointing to their victim’s beliefs or decisions.