R v Pagett [1983] 76 Cr App R 279; [1983] Crim LR 393

Homicide is the act of causing another person's death, and it covers various types of unlawful killings, from intentional acts to those resulting from negligence.

• The legal system differentiates between these categories based on intent and circumstances, with serious penalties reflecting the gravity of the offense.

Manslaughter is a type of homicide without premeditation or intent to kill. It includes voluntary manslaughter, which occurs in the heat of passion, and involuntary manslaughter, resulting from reckless or negligent behavior.

• It generally carries lesser penalties than murder but remains a serious crime.

• A manslaughter verdict means the court has found someone guilty of causing death without intent to kill.

• This verdict results in a lesser sentence than for murder, recognizing the lower degree of culpability based on the circumstances and intent.

In the early hours of one morning, David Keith Pagett ("Appellant"), armed with a shotgun and cartridges, shot at police officers attempting to arrest him in his flat.

• He had a 16-year-old pregnant girl with him, whom he used against her will as a shield from the police.

• The officers returned fire, resulting in the girl's death.

The Appellant was charged with her murder.

During the trial, the judge instructed the jury that to convict the Appellant of murder, they had to be sure he fired first, causing the officers to shoot back, and that the police acted reasonably in self-defense or in their duties.

• If they were not sure of these facts, they should acquit him as the link between his actions and the girl’s death would be broken.

• For the alternative charge of manslaughter, the judge explained that if the Appellant's acts—shooting at the police and forcing the girl to shield him—were dangerous and unlawful, and if such acts were likely to cause harm to the girl, then he could be found guilty of manslaughter.

• The jury acquitted the Appellant of murder but convicted him of manslaughter.

On Appeal, it was argued that the judge had misdirected the jury on causation.

Specifically, it was contended that the judge should have left to the jury the determination of whether the Appellant’s act of firing at the police was a substantial, operative, or imputable cause of the girl’s death.

It was the judge's responsibility to direct the jury on the relevant principles of law concerning causation and then allow the jury to determine, based on these principles, whether the causal link had been established.

• In homicide cases, specific directions on causation were rarely necessary.

• When such directions were required, it was typically sufficient to instruct the jury that the accused’s act did not need to be the sole or main cause of the victim’s death; it was enough if the act contributed significantly to the result.

• However, a specific issue of causation could arise where the accused’s act.

• At the same time, a necessary condition for the victim's death, was not the sole cause due to the intervention of a third party, potentially relieving the accused of liability.

• A reasonable act performed for self-preservation, including reasonable self-defense, or an act performed in the execution of a legal duty, did not constitute a novus actus interveniens.

In this case, the jury had found that the appellant used the victim girl by force and against her will as a shield from police fire, resulting in two unlawful and dangerous acts:

1. Firing at the police and

2. Using the girl as a shield.

Either act could, under the principles outlined, constitute the actus reus of manslaughter.

As no legitimate criticism could be made of the trial judge’s direction on causation, the appeal was dismissed on this ground and the other grounds.

This case presents a nuanced exploration of homicide and manslaughter within the legal framework, focusing on the principles of causation and intent.

• Homicide, as the act of causing another person's death, encompasses various forms of unlawful killings, each with its legal implications and penalties.

• The differentiation between these categories hinges on the intent and circumstances surrounding the act, highlighting the gravity of such offenses in the eyes of the law.

Manslaughter, a subset of homicide, is particularly noteworthy for its lack of premeditation or intent to kill.

• It includes voluntary manslaughter, which occurs in the heat of passion, and involuntary manslaughter, stemming from reckless or negligent behavior.

• While manslaughter carries lesser penalties than murder, it remains a serious crime due to the unlawful taking of a life.

The case of David Keith Pagett exemplifies the complexities involved in determining culpability in homicide and manslaughter cases.

• Pagett, armed with a shotgun, used a 16-year-old pregnant girl as a human shield during a confrontation with police officers attempting to arrest him.

• The ensuing gunfire resulted in the girl's death, leading to charges of murder and, alternatively, manslaughter.

In homicide cases, specific directions on causation are typically unnecessary unless a particular issue arises, such as the intervention of a third party. A reasonable act of self-defense or an act performed in the execution of a legal duty does not break the causal chain (novus actus interveniens).

This case shows the importance of clear judicial instructions on legal principles and the jury's role in applying these principles to the facts to determine causation and culpability in homicide and manslaughter cases.