R v Wallace [2018] EWCA Crim 690

Assisted suicide involves aiding another person in ending their life, often due to terminal illness or unbearable suffering. This topic raises complex ethical and legal questions about personal autonomy and the role of healthcare professionals. While advocates emphasize the compassionate choice for those in pain, opponents worry about potential abuses. Laws vary widely on assisted suicide, reflecting different societal values regarding life and death.

Hearsay evidence consists of out-of-court statements presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is generally deemed inadmissible due to reliability concerns.

Intervening events are occurrences that happen after an initial act, potentially altering the causal chain and a defendant's liability. They can include natural disasters or actions by third parties that may influence the outcome. Courts assess whether these events break the connection between the defendant's conduct and the resulting harm.

When a victim applies for and receives euthanasia, it raises complex ethical and legal considerations regarding the right to die. Euthanasia is often sought by those facing unmanageable pain, and legal frameworks differ widely across jurisdictions. The decision reflects personal autonomy and broader societal debates about life, suffering, and healthcare responsibilities.

In September 2015, Berlinah Wallace (“Defendant”) threw sulfuric acid at Mr Mark van Dongen (“Victim”), resulting in severe injuries. The Victim was left disfigured, visually impaired, completely paralyzed, and in a permanent state of unbearable physical and psychological pain that could not be alleviated by medical treatment. 

In November 2016, the Victim's father traveled to the UK and took him to Belgium, where he was admitted to a hospital. There, medical professionals informed the Victim that his condition was permanent and that there was no prospect of improvement.

Subsequently, the Victim applied for euthanasia, which was permissible under Belgian law. During this time, he developed a serious lung infection but refused treatment through intubation. Euthanasia was performed in January 2017.

The Defendant was charged with murder and applying a corrosive substance with intent. At the end of the prosecution's case, the trial judge considered the Defendant's application for no case to answer. 

The judge concluded that the Victim's act of applying for euthanasia and the actions of the doctors in providing it were independent, free, and voluntary acts that broke the chain of causation, qualifying as a "novus actus interveniens" between the Defendant’s conduct of throwing the acid and the Victim’s death. As a result, the judge withdrew the murder charge from the jury. The Crown subsequently appealed under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The court held that, allowing the appeal, that while causative significance must be assessed in intervening acts or events, the question in homicide cases was whether the accused's actions were a significant cause of the victim's death. The victim's death, his request for euthanasia, and the doctors' actions were directly linked to the injuries inflicted by the defendant.

The Belgian doctors’ classification of the victim's request as “voluntary” under Belgian law did not determine its legal voluntariness. The jury could conclude that the victim's suffering and decision to end his life were not truly voluntary, given the circumstances, thus indicating the defendant's actions were instrumental in causing the death.

Moreover, the doctors’ intervention did not negate causation. Their lawful actions did not constitute a “novus actus interveniens.” Therefore, the Crown was entitled to pursue a murder charge against the defendant, and a new trial was ordered.

The issues surrounding assisted suicide and euthanasia raise significant ethical and legal questions. Advocates argue for the right to choose a compassionate end to suffering, emphasizing personal autonomy, while opponents’ express concerns about potential abuses and pressures on vulnerable populations. The legal landscape is inconsistent, with different jurisdictions reflecting varying societal values regarding life and death.

The concept of causation is crucial in homicide cases, determining a Defendant's liability. Intervening events can alter the causal chain, as seen in the case of Berlinah Wallace and Mark van Dongen. The trial judge ruled that the victim’s request for euthanasia broke the chain of causation, deeming it a “novus actus interveniens.” This decision raised critical questions about the nature of voluntariness in the victim's choice and the defendant’s responsibility.

The court ultimately concluded that the defendant’s actions were significant in the victim’s death, allowing the Crown to pursue a murder charge. This ruling highlight the need for careful consideration of personal autonomy and legal accountability in assisted dying cases. As societal values evolve, ongoing dialogue is essential to address the ethical implications and ensure that the rights of individuals facing suffering are upheld. The Wallace and van Dongen case serves as a poignant reminder of the profound impact of these issues on both legal principles and individual lives.