R v Wallace [2018]

1. Facts:

• The defendant (D) poured acid on her ex-boyfriend (V).

• V was left in a permanent state of severe pain.

• V applied for and was granted voluntary euthanasia under Belgian law, which is illegal in the UK.

• D was prosecuted for murder in the UK.

2. Outcome:

• D’s lawyers submitted a "no case to answer" argument, asserting that there was no legal causation for V's death.

• The court of appeal agreed, allowing the appeal.

• The ruling shifted the legal causation test from requiring the defendant’s actions to be the “operating and substantial” cause of death to “operating and significant (secondary)” cause.

• It was held that V’s decision to seek euthanasia was not made with “free and unfettered volition” due to the permanent suffering caused by D’s actions.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Legal Causation Test Shift: The case marked a shift from the traditional test of “operating and substantial” cause to a broader “operating and significant” cause. This means that the defendant no longer has to be the primary cause of death, but must have made a significant contribution.

• ‘No Case to Answer’: This submission allows a defendant to seek acquittal if the prosecution’s evidence is deemed insufficient to establish a case. In this case, it was argued that D’s actions were not the direct cause of V’s death as V's decision to seek euthanasia played a significant role.

• Voluntary Euthanasia and Causation: The case highlighted the complex interplay between the defendant's actions and the victim's subsequent decisions. The court considered that V's voluntary euthanasia request was influenced by the permanent suffering caused by D’s actions, thereby impacting the causation analysis.

• New ‘unfettered’ requirement: Was the victim in Kennedy 2007 unfettered? May have been pressurised by their love of drugs