R v Wallace
A victim's decision to undergo lawful euthanasia abroad did not necessarily break the chain of causation from the defendant's acid attack.
Facts
Berlinah Wallace threw sulphuric acid over her former partner, Mark van Dongen, causing catastrophic injuries, including paralysis, blindness and disfigurement. More than a year later, he travelled to Belgium and ended his life by euthanasia, which was lawful there, because of his unbearable physical and psychological suffering. At her trial for murder, at the close of the prosecution case, the judge ruled that his decision to undergo euthanasia broke the chain of causation, so the facts could not amount to murder or manslaughter. The prosecution appealed against that ruling.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the judge's ruling was wrong. The principle in R v Kennedy, that a free, deliberate and informed act of the victim breaks the chain of causation, was not an absolute rule. Whether the victim's decision broke the chain was a matter for the jury, applying the test of whether the defendant's acts were a significant and operating cause of death and whether the victim's response was reasonably foreseeable, given the extreme suffering the defendant had caused. The court ordered a retrial, at which the jury acquitted Ms Wallace of murder and manslaughter but convicted her of throwing a corrosive substance with intent.
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.
