| dbo:abstract
|
- 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. (en)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 3071 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:caption
|
- 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 (en)
|
| dbp:citations
| |
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:fullName
| |
| dbp:keywords
|
- (en)
- Novus actus interveniens; causation; refused gangrene treatment (en)
|
| dbp:name
| |
| dbp:opinions
|
- Per curiam : manslaughter or murder can remain the appropriate charge notwithstanding that a victim has refused medical treatment, in some circumstances (en)
|
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- 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. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
