R v Pagett [1983] 76 Cr App R 279

Facts

  • The defendant, Pagett, kidnapped his pregnant girlfriend.
  • During a confrontation with police, Pagett fired at an officer and used his girlfriend as a human shield to protect himself from return fire.
  • A police sniper, responding to Pagett's actions, fired at Pagett, but the shot fatally wounded the girlfriend instead.
  • Pagett was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter.
  • The appeal focused on whether the police officer’s act constituted a new intervening act (novus actus interveniens) that broke the causal link between Pagett's conduct and the victim's death.

Issues

  1. Whether the police officer's act of firing at Pagett, which resulted in the girlfriend's death, constituted a novus actus interveniens, breaking the chain of causation.
  2. Whether reasonable acts of self-defense or legal duty, performed in response to the defendant's conduct, can relieve the defendant of criminal liability for resulting harm.
  3. Whether Pagett’s actions were a significant contributing cause of the victim’s death, sufficient to establish criminal liability.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeal held that the act of the police officer did not amount to a novus actus interveniens.
  • It was determined that a reasonable act of self-preservation or legal duty, directly caused by the defendant's initial act, does not break the chain of causation.
  • The court affirmed that Pagett’s conduct—using his girlfriend as a shield and firing at police—remained a significant cause of her death.
  • The manslaughter conviction was upheld.

Legal Principles

  • A novus actus interveniens is a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between a defendant’s conduct and resultant harm, but only if it is sufficiently independent of the defendant’s actions.
  • Reasonable actions taken in self-defense or in the performance of a legal duty, caused by the defendant, do not break the causal link.
  • Liability in criminal law requires the defendant’s act to be a significant or substantial cause of the harm; sole causation is not needed.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal in R v Pagett clarified that defendants remain liable when their actions foreseeably trigger reasonable responses by others, such as acts of self-defense, and such responses do not constitute a novus actus interveniens. The decision reinforces that a defendant’s conduct need only be a significant contributing factor to the result to establish criminal liability.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal