## 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.


R v Pagett [1983] 76 Cr App R 279