판결 이유
The reasonable act of a third party acting in self-defence or in the execution of duty does not break the chain of causation. The defendant who creates the dangerous situation remains the legal cause of the victim's death.
사실관계
Pagett, who was wanted by the police and had already shot at officers, used his pregnant girlfriend, Gail Kinchen, as a human shield: holding her in front of him, he came out and fired at armed police officers who were trying to arrest him. The officers, acting instinctively in self-defence, returned fire, and their shots killed the girl. Pagett was charged with (among other things) her manslaughter.
판결 요약
The Court of Appeal upheld Pagett's conviction for manslaughter. Robert Goff LJ held that, on ordinary principles of causation, Pagett's conduct was both the factual (but-for) and the legal cause of the girl's death. The instinctive return of fire by the police officers, acting reasonably in self-defence or in the lawful execution of their duty in response to the danger Pagett himself had created, was a foreseeable and reasonable act that did not break the chain of causation. A defendant who, by his own unlawful and dangerous act, forces another to react in a way that causes harm cannot escape liability by pointing to that reaction. The court also confirmed that in homicide, causation is ultimately a question for the jury, on which the judge directs them as to the relevant legal principles. The case is a leading authority on intervening acts (novus actus interveniens) and the effect of a third party's reasonable, self-preserving response.
주요 인용문
"The reasonable act of a third party, such as a police officer acting in self-defence, does not break the causal chain between the defendant's act and the victim's death."
— Robert Goff LJ
후속 처리
Standard authority on third-party acts and the chain of causation in criminal law.
What To Do Next
Step-by-Step Guides
Know Your Rights
Common Scenarios
Get Professional Help