R v Holland
A defendant remains liable for a death even if the victim unreasonably refused medical treatment that might have saved his life.
Facts
Mr Holland cut the victim's finger with an iron instrument in an attack. The victim was advised by a surgeon to have his finger amputated, which would probably have saved his life, but he refused. The wound became infected with lockjaw, and he died. Mr Holland was charged with murder.
Legal principle
Maule J directed the jury that the real question was whether the wound inflicted by the defendant was the cause of death, and that it made no difference that the victim's life might have been saved if he had agreed to the amputation. Mr Holland was convicted. The case is an early example of the principle that a defendant takes his victim as he finds him, later developed in R v Blaue.
Related cases on causation
- Baker v Willoughby [1970] AC 467
- Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20, [2006] 2 AC 572
- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428
- Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613
- Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41, [2005] 1 AC 134
- Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32
- Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2, [2005] 2 AC 176
- Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC 750
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
