The case of R v Pagett [1983] 76 Cr App R 279 is one of the most important decisions in English criminal law concerning the principle of causation. It clarified how courts determine whether a defendant’s actions remain a significant cause of death when another party, such as a third person or authority, also contributes to the fatal result. The judgement addressed the question of whether a lawful and reasonable act, carried out in response to the defendant’s conduct, could break the chain of causation and absolve the defendant of responsibility.
This case is frequently studied in criminal law because it set out the principle that lawful acts of self-defence or actions taken under legal duty cannot be considered a novus actus interveniens. Instead, where the defendant’s conduct has substantially contributed to the death, they will remain liable.
Background Facts of R v Pagett
The events in R v Pagett arose when the defendant, Pagett, was confronted by armed police officers attempting to arrest him. During the incident, he fired his shotgun at the officers. In a desperate attempt to shield himself, he used his pregnant teenage girlfriend as a human shield, forcing her in front of him to deter police retaliation.
The officers, acting in self-defence and in the execution of their legal duty, returned fire. Tragically, the girl was struck and killed in the crossfire. The death of the victim became the subject of legal proceedings, where the central issue was whether Pagett himself could be held legally responsible for the killing, even though the fatal shot was fired by the police.
At trial, Pagett was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. He later appealed, arguing that it was the actions of the police, not his own, that caused the death.
Legal Issue
The R v Pagett case turned on a key issue of causation:
- Did the police officer’s act of returning fire amount to a novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act) that broke the chain of causation?
- Or was Pagett’s conduct the continuing and substantial cause of the victim’s death?
This distinction was critical because if the chain of causation had been broken, Pagett could not be held legally responsible for manslaughter.
Court’s Reasoning in R v Pagett
The Court of Appeal examined whether the police officer’s actions in firing the fatal shot could break the causal chain. It held that neither a reasonable act of self-preservation nor an act performed in the course of a legal duty could constitute a novus actus interveniens.
In other words:
- The officer’s decision to fire back was a reasonable and proportionate response in self-defence.
- The officer was also acting under a legal duty to attempt the arrest of a dangerous offender.
Because both conditions applied, the police officer’s actions were deemed a foreseeable and lawful reaction to Pagett’s conduct. Therefore, the causal chain remained intact.
The court further noted that in homicide cases, juries do not usually need complex directions on causation. It is sufficient to state that the defendant’s conduct need not be the sole cause of death, provided it contributed significantly to the outcome.
In this case, Pagett’s acts were clearly dangerous: firing at the police and using his girlfriend as a shield. Both actions were ones that a sober and reasonable person would recognise as likely to cause harm. The victim’s death was therefore directly linked to Pagett’s behaviour.
R v Pagett Judgement
The Court of Appeal dismissed Pagett’s appeal. It held that his actions were the “operating and substantial cause” of his girlfriend’s death. Even though the police officer fired the fatal shot, Pagett’s conduct had substantially contributed to the events leading to the tragedy.
As a result, the conviction for manslaughter was upheld.
Conclusion
R v Pagett [1983] 76 Cr App R 279 stands as a leading authority on causation in English criminal law. The case confirmed that when a defendant’s actions substantially contribute to a death, they cannot escape liability simply because another party’s response was also involved. The judgement emphasised that lawful and reasonable actions, such as those taken in self-defence or under legal duty, will not break the causal chain.