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.