R v Blaue (1975) The defendant entered the home of an 18 year old woman and asked for sex. When she declined his advances, he stabbed her four times; the wound penetrated her lung which necessitated both a blood transfusion and surgery in order to save her life. After refusing treatment because of her religious beliefs (i.e. Jehovah's Witness) she died. Medical evidence showed that she would not have died if she had received treatment. In his final speech to the jury, counsel for the Crown 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 defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility. The defence argued that the victim’s refusal to accept medical treatment broke the chain of causation between the stabbing and her death. What was the chain of causation in the woman’s death? What offence should the defendant be charged with? Should the defendant be convicted of the offence? Why or why not? R v Smithers (1977) Defendant and deceased both young hockey players were the leading players in two competing teams. During the game, which was rough, the players were aggressive and feelings ran high. Defendant was subjected to racial insults by the deceased and other members of the opposing team. Following a heated exchange of profanities defendant and deceased were both ejected from the game. Defendant however indicated that he intended to continue the confrontation and made repeated threats. The deceased was apprehensive and left the arena at the end of the game. Outside, Defendant caught up with him, attacked him and, though held back, managed to kick him in the abdomen. Death resulted shortly thereafter. The medical evidence indicated that the deceased had died from asphyxia from aspiration of foreign materials due to vomiting. Defendant testified he had acted in self-defence. What is the chain of causation in this case? What offence should the defendant be charged with? Should the defendant be convicted of the offence? Why or why not? R v Jordan (1956) The defendant, an American airman, stabbed a man named Walter Beaumont in a café in Hull, on May 4, 1956. Beaumont died in hospital on May 12. At the trial evidence was given on behalf of the prosecution by the pathologist who carried out the post-mortem examination that the cause of death was broncho-pneumonia following penetrating abdominal injury. The defence argued that death was caused by the introduction of terramycin after the deceased man had shown that he was intolerant to it and by the intravenous introduction of abnormal quantities of liquid. The stab wound had penetrated the intestine in two places, but it was mainly healed at the time of death. With a view to preventing infection it was thought right to administer an antibiotic, terramycin. After the initial dose it was found that the patient was allergic to terramycin, but unfortunately the very next day the resumption of such administration was ordered by another doctor and it was recommenced the following day. Other steps were taken which were also regarded by the doctors as wrong-namely, the intravenous introduction of abnormal quantities of liquid. As a result the lungs became waterlogged and broncho-pneumonia was discovered. The defendant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. What is the chain of causation in this case? Should the defendant be allowed to appeal his conviction? R v Nette (2001) A 95-year-old Kelowna widow who lived alone was robbed and left bound with electrical wire on her bed with a garment around her head and neck. Sometime during the next 48 hours, she died from asphyxiation. During an RCMP undercover operation, the accused told a police officer that he had been involved in the robbery and death. The accused was charged with first degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code -- murder while committing the offence of unlawful confinement. At trial, he claimed that he had fabricated the admission. He testified that he had gone alone to the victim’s house only with intent to break and enter, that the back door to the house was open as though someone already had broken into the home, and that he left after finding the victim already dead in her bedroom. What is the chain of causation in this case? The defendant was convicted and lost his appeal… what charge do you think he should have been convicted of? Check out Sec. 231 (5). What is the standard for causation
Dr Mark Earley MD FRCP Consultant Cardiologist PERSONAL DETAILS ADDRESS GMC REGISTRATION 4009089 QUALIFICATIONS: BSc 1st Class Honours in Anatomical Science BHF Junior research fellowship (FS/02/078/14748) Shortlisted for Heart Rhythm Society and British Cardiac 2005 Society Young Investigator Awards. SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS: Royal College of Physicians
MARINO FELICE s.n.c. di Marino F. e F. Via Caduti per la Patria, 41 12054 COSSANO BELBO CN Data Inizio Analisi 04/12/2012 RAPPORTO DI PROVA n° 12T01645-It-0 CAMPIONE 12T01645 Descrizione dichiarata: FARINA BIOLOGICA DI Triticum Monococcum ENKIR Lotto/Codice:: 011113Richiesta via Internet n° N0077/12 del 03/12/2012 8.02.16. - Data arrivo campione 04/12/2012. n° 1 sacchetto.