Regina v. Robert Konrad Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411
- Author: Gulzar Hashmi
- Location: India
- Published: 02 Nov 2025
- Slug: regina-v-robert-konrad-blaue
Quick Summary
This case is about criminal causation. The accused stabbed an 18-year-old girl. Doctors needed a blood transfusion before surgery. She refused it due to her faith as a Jehovah’s Witness, even after being told she could die. She died. The defence said her refusal was a new intervening act (novus actus) that broke the chain of causation. The Court of Appeal said no: the stab wound remained the operating and substantial cause of death. In criminal law, you take your victim as you find them — beliefs included.
Issues
- Did refusal of a life-saving transfusion break the chain of causation?
- Was the original wound still the operating and substantial cause of death?
Rules
Operating & Substantial Cause Rule: If, at the time of death, the original wound is still operating and is a substantial cause, the death is the result of that wound, even if other factors are also present.
Thin Skull Rule: The perpetrator must take the victim as found — physical, mental, and religious characteristics included.
Facts (Timeline)
Arguments
Appellant
- The victim’s refusal of transfusion was a novus actus interveniens.
- Therefore, the chain of causation was broken; the death should not be attributed to the stabbing.
Respondent
- The stab wound remained the operating and substantial cause of death.
- Under the thin skull rule, the attacker must accept the victim’s religious stance.
Judgment
Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the refusal did not break the chain of causation. The stab wound was still the operating and substantial cause of death.
A defendant cannot avoid liability by saying the victim could have lived if they had accepted recommended medical care — including blood transfusion — when the original injury is still a major cause.
Ratio
Core principle: Where a wound remains operative and substantial at death, liability for homicide remains, even if the victim’s choices (medical or religious) contribute to the outcome.
Thin skull rule extended: “Take your victim as you find them” covers beliefs and values, not just physical condition.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies causation where medical refusal is based on sincere religious belief.
- Strengthens the thin skull rule beyond physical fragility to personal convictions.
- Guides exam answers on novus actus interveniens and medical treatment cases.
Key Takeaways
- Causation stands if the wound is still operating and substantial.
- Refusal of treatment (for faith or choice) does not break the chain.
- Take your victim as found — beliefs, vulnerabilities, and risks included.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “WOUND WINS”
- Wound first: Ask if the wound is still operating.
- Substantial cause: If yes, causation survives.
- Victim as found: Beliefs don’t excuse the attacker.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Did the victim’s refusal of a transfusion break the chain of causation?
Rule
Operating & substantial cause; thin skull rule applies to beliefs.
Application
The stabbing caused life-threatening injury. Refusal flowed from sincere faith. The wound remained the main cause of death.
Conclusion
No break in causation. Conviction for manslaughter stands.
Glossary
- Novus actus interveniens
- A new intervening act that breaks the causal chain.
- Thin skull rule
- You take your victim as you find them, including beliefs and weaknesses.
- Operating and substantial cause
- A major, continuing cause at the time of death.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now