Ace the A Level Law Exam 2025 – Unleash Your Inner Legal Eagle!

The case that is typically cited for medical treatment being deemed 'palpably wrong' and thus breaking the chain of causation is **R v. Jordan**. In this case, the victim was initially injured due to an act committed by the defendant. However, subsequent medical treatment was so inappropriate that it was considered to have resulted in the victim's death, independent of the original injury caused by the defendant's act.

The court found that the medical treatment was not only a significant cause of the deterioration in the victim's condition but that it was clearly unjustifiable. This led to the conclusion that the chain of causation from the original act to the resulting harm was broken due to the palpably wrong medical intervention. It is an important case that illustrates how grossly negligent medical treatment can serve as a new intervening act, severing the link to the original act of the defendant.

In contrast, cases like **Roberts** and **Cheshire** involve different contexts regarding causation and the responses of victims, where the causation was generally upheld despite subsequent actions. **Blaue** also dealt with the concept of foreseeability and the victim's refusal of treatment without the emphasis on the medical treatment being palpably wrong. Therefore, **R