R v Holland
R v Holland (1841) 2 Mood. & R. 351 is an English criminal law case dealing with novus actus interveniens, and the chain of causation.
The victim refused medical treatment for a gangrene-infected wound, that had been inflicted by the defendant, and died. It is likely the victim would have survived had he received treatment.
The court used the 'but for' test; 'but for the initial injury, would the victim have died?' Even though he would have not died, and the victim broke the chain of causation, it was because the defendant had started the chain that he was convicted of murder.
External links
  | This article relating to law in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions, is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
 | This crime-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |