R v Holland
| R v Holland | |
|---|---|
 A treatment like stitches, or antiseptic cleansing and bandaging could likely have saved the victim, however its refusal and resultant death would not affect the charge being capable of increasing to homicide, regardless of that decision | |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Full case name | Regina v. Holland |
| Citation | (1841) 2 Mood. & R. 351 |
| Case opinions | |
| Per curiam (unanimously): manslaughter or murder can remain the appropriate charge notwithstanding that a victim has refused medical treatment, in some circumstances | |
| Keywords | |
| |
R v Holland (1841) is a general-principle English criminal law decision as to novus actus interveniens — breaking the chain of causation. It confirmed the rarity of scenarios that will break the chain when serious, intentional bodily harm is carried out.
Facts
A man wounded another. The victim refused medical treatment for the gangrene-infected wound and died. It is likely he would have survived had he received treatment.
Decision
The court used the 'but for' test; 'but for the initial injury, would the victim have died?'
Even though the victim broke the chain of causation, the defendant had started the chain and he was rightly in law convicted of murder.
Application
The decision was directly applied (followed) in R v Blaue.