Pagett was convicted of manslaughter. First he gave them the full definition of murder in the following terms: Next he considered with the jury the two acts of the appellant which the prosecution contended were unlawful and deliberate and which caused her death, viz. In practical terms, however, that is precisely what the learned judge did; and so his mis-statement (such as it was) of the legal position was of no materiality. Gail was hysterical, pleading with the appellant not to shoot Mrs. Wood. Share. D held a 16-year-old girl who was pregnant by him as a shield. The appellant hit her on the head with the gun and she fell to the ground. United Kingdom. The appellant said to Gail: "Talk to them, they don't think I mean it. " positions leaves only one principled solution. There must be a causal connection between the act by the accused and the death. A police officer, using a loud hailer, told the appellant to surrender his gun and come out. He is, I am afraid, absent elsewhere. I have spoken to your learned Registrar who informs me that this court cannot receive that application without Mr. Justice Farquharson. He submitted that that question had to be answered by the jury as a question of fact. At the trial, the appellant dismissed his counsel and defended himself. But how the victim came by his death is usually not in dispute. R. 271 that "It has long been the policy of the law that those who use violence on other people must take their victims as they find them. R v Rafferty - voluntary intervention of third party breaks causation. My Lords, perhaps the question of costs should be dealt with at that stage rather than today. In that case, which was concerned with an attempt to obtain property by deception, the trial judge directed the jury that certain conduct of the accused, if proved, would in law constitute the actus reus of an attempt. Courts-martial – foreigner killed abroad by British soldier – Extraterritorial jurisdiction. App. The officers took cover in a nearby garden. LORD T. GIFFORD Q. C. and MR. R. ALLEN appeared on behalf of the Appellant. BRISBANE . In the course of this discussion, counsel for the prosecution referred the learned judge to a passage in Professor Smith and Professor Hogan's Criminal Law, 4th ed., at page 272, which reads as follows: "Causation is a question of both fact and law. Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. REGINA v Pagett England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (3 Feb, 1983) R v. Pagett. The criticism of the summing-up, advanced in this court by Lord Gifford (to whose argument we are much indebted), was directed primarily to the direction to the jury on causation, which was of course equally applicable to the count of murder and the alternative count of manslaughter. By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. They have also lived in Macomb, MI and Novi, MI plus 5 other locations. Catherine Michael. For these reasons, we reject the argument founded on the third ground of appeal. But that does not mean that there are no principles of law relating to causation, so that no directions on law are ever to be given to a jury on the question of causation. LORD JUSTICE ROBERT GOFF: Secondly, the date we have provisionally in mind is Friday fortnight. I understand that there is a date when the court could be reconstituted. John Charles Pagett abt 1892 Binda, New South Wales, Australia - 22 Aug 1948 last edited 22 Feb 2019. Wade Pagett currently lives in Woodward, OK; in the past Wade has also lived in Guymon OK. Wade also answers to Leo Wade Pagett, Leo W Pagett, Wade L Pagett, L Wade Pagett and L W Pagett, and perhaps a couple of other names. the act performed for the purpose of self-preservation consisted of an act by the victim in attempting to escape from the violence of the accused, which in fact resulted in the victim's death. He kept on hitting Gail. One of the officers called out to the appellant that he was surrounded by armed police, and should come out. MR. ALLEN: My Lord, may I first say I appear here as Lord Gifford's junior. However, she finished the relationship within 6 months of the pregnancy. MR. ALLEN: I will take that date from the court back to my clerk. The appellant was unharmed by the bullets fired by the police officers. Then the door was unlocked and opened. In our judgment, as we have already indicated, either of these acts could in the present case have constituted the necessary actus reus, whether of murder or manslaughter, causing Gail Kinchen's death. In both these cases. Reference this Whether fugitive using a girl as a shield was guilty of murder or manslaughter when she was killed by a police bullet. We are therefore unable to accept it. We need not burden this judgment with his defence, which was plainly rejected by the jury. However, the grounds of appeal raise a question of law alone and for that reason the appeal has been referred directly to the full court. The appellant moved towards the officers pushing Gail in front of him. No Acts. He was acquitted of the murder of Gail, but convicted of her manslaughter. R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279. TUESDAY, 2 FEBRUARY 2016 . Even where it is necessary to direct the jury's minds to the question of causation, it is usually enough to direct them simply that in law the accused's act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of the victim's death, it being enough that his act contributed significantly to that result. Whether a particular act which is a sine qua non of an alleged actus reus is also a cause of it is a question of law. Mrs. Wood got out on the passenger side; her evidence was that the appellant hit her on the head and knocked her out of the car. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279, Court of Appeal. The judge directed the jury that his drunkenness was irrelevant unless he was so drunk as to be incapable of knowing what he was doing. Mrs. Wood turned and saw him aiming his gun at her husband. 1840. Intervening Acts. He then in furtherance of attempt to resist lawful arrest, held a girl in front of him as a shield while shooting at the police who were armed. They arrived at the flat where Gail was, 15 Masefield Square. R v Latif [1996] WLR 104 [1996] 2 Cr App Rep 92 [1996] 2 Cr App R 92 [1996] 1 All ER 353 [1996] Crim LR 92 [1996] UKHL 16 [1996] 1 WLR 104. They could hear the appellant threatening to kill them. change. He shouted for the police to go or he would shoot; he said that if they did not leave he would kill her. App. He arrived at the Woods' house at 77 Brandon Park Road shortly after midnight. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. The appellant drove off in the mini, with Mrs. Wood in the passenger seat and Gail sitting on her lap. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. The United States authorities cited to us, which reflect some diversity of judicial opinion, were concerned with the question whether an accused person could be convicted of the murder or manslaughter of a person by shooting, where the fatal shot was fired not by the accused but by some other person. Copyright © 2003 - 2020 - LawTeacher is a trading name of All Answers Ltd, a company registered in England and Wales. A majority of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held (following a number of earlier authorities, including in particular Commonwealth v. Campbell 89 Mass, 541 (1863), Butler v. The People 125 Ill. 64l (1888), and Commonwealth v. Moore 121 Ky. 97 (1905)) that the conviction of one of the robbers for the murder of the deceased robber could not stand, the fatal shot not having been fired by him but by another person with whom he was not acting in concert. Once you create your profile, you will be able to: Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work. Her Majesty the Queen. (Pa. ) (1958), the earlier case of Thomas was overruled, and Almeida itself, although not formally overruled, was plainly disapproved by the majority of the court. Of course, a necessary ingredient of the crimes of murder and manslaughter is that the accused has by his act caused the victim's death. The present appeal against conviction is concerned only with the conviction of the manslaughter of Gail Kinchen. Thus in, for example, R. v. Towers (1874) 12 Cox C. C. 530, the accused struck a woman; she screamed loudly, and a child whom she was then nursing turned black in the face, and from that day until it died suffered from convulsions. R v Bains [2008] QCA 247, cited R v CAN [2009] QCA 59, considered R v Carter [2008] QCA 226, cited R v Hey; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 23, cited. There was no sound in the flat; the officers thought that the appellant and Gail might be asleep. Acts of the Victim. Registered office: Venture House, Cross Street, Arnold, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG5 7PJ. Other parties may have to be involved. The mere coincidence of homicide and felony is not enough to satisfy the requirement of the felony-murder doctrine.... "The legal situation which for years obtained in this State in cases of felony-murder was aptly epitomized by Mr. Justice Parker in Commonwealth v. Guida 341 Pa. 505, 308, 19 A. Peter V. Pagett 1940s - 2000s . Case Information. It does not lie in the mouth of the assailant to say that his victim's religious belief which inhibited her from accepting certain kinds of treatment was unreasonable. The appellant then drove off with Gail. So far as we are aware, there is no such rule in English law; and, in the absence of any doctrine of constructive malice, we can see no basis in principle for any such rule in English law. For the appellant, Lord Gifford criticised the statement of the learned authors that "Whether a particular act which is a sine qua non of an alleged actus reus is also a cause of it is a question of law". A shotgun barrel was poked out of the doorway. 100, as follows: '.... if a person killed another in doing or attempting to do another act, and if the act done or attempted to be done was a felony, the killing was murder. The appellant gestured with his gun at the officers and said: "One more step pal, and I will let you have it. " R . In June 1980 Gail, who was then aged 16 and was six months pregnant by the appellant, left him after various domestic upsets and returned to the home of her mother and stepfather (Mr. and Mrs. Wood) in Brandon Park Road, Birmingham. 3rd party must be free, deliberate and informed. This free case note, and accompanying worksheet, is taken from a series of law materials which are available to purchase on the TES website. On the contrary, generally speaking causation is a question of fact for the jury. R v Pagett R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 The appellant aged 31 had separated from his wife and formed a relationship with a 16 year old girl. This is plain from, for example, the case of Pitts, to which we have already referred. The appellant took Gail into his flat, No. No English authority was cited to us in support of any such proposition, and we know of none. Similarly, it was held by this court in the case of R. v. Blaue (1975) 6l Cr. The officers warned him several times that they were armed, and told the appellant to stand still and drop his gun. It must follow that the mens rea for each crime is different; and further that, on the evidence before them, it was open to the jury in the present case to conclude (if they thought it right to do so) that the appellant did not have any one of the three subjective intentions specified by Lord Hailsham as constituting the mens rea of murder, but did have the necessary mens rea for manslaughter. 4, which was on the first floor. Important Paras. We therefore reject the second ground of appeal. They found the appellant sitting on the floor at the corner of the landing, with Gail sitting on top of him. Then we will meet again presumably, unless we hear to the contrary, on l8th February. D. C. Richards fired two more shots, and D. S. Sartain one. R v Michael. Whether he is guilty of murder or manslaughter will depend upon the question whether all the ingredients of the relevant offence have been proved; in particular, on a charge of murder, it will be necessary that the accused had the necessary intent, on the principles stated by the House of Lords in Hyam v. D. P. P. (1975) A C 55. He stood by the banister. LORD JUSTICE ROBERT GOFF: What I think I would like to say is this. a reasonable act performed for the purpose of self-preservation, and an act done in performance of a legal duty. There is however one further aspect of the present case to which we must advert. R V PAGETT (1983) PUBLISHED February 3, 1983. Occasionally, however, a specific issue of causation may arise. Take a look at some weird laws from around the world! CATEGORIES. Our comments should therefore be understood to be confined not merely to the criminal law, but to cases of homicide (and possibly also other crimes of violence to the person); and it must be emphasised that the problem of causation in the present case is specifically concerned with the intervention of another person (here one of the police officers) whose act was the immediate cause of the death of the victim, Gail Kinchen. R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 (Court of Appeal) Facts : The defendant (D), armed with a shotgun and cartridges, shot at police who were attempting to arrest him. By then, police officers trained in the use of weapons and in the handling of "hostage situations" had arrived on the scene. He dragged her off to his car, asking where Gail was. But, for present purposes, the passage which is of most immediate relevance is to be found in Chapter XII, in which the learned authors consider the circumstances in which the intervention of a third person, not acting in concert with the accused, may have the effect of relieving the accused of criminal responsibility. It is right to observe that this direction of the learned judge followed upon a discussion with counsel, in the absence of the jury; though the appellant, having dismissed his own counsel, was for this purpose without legal representation. '.... And so, until the decision of this court in Commonwealth v. Almeida...., the rule which was uniformly followed, whether by express statement or by implication, was that in order to convict for felony-murder, the killing must have been done by the defendant or by an accomplice or confederate or by one acting in furtherance of the felonious undertaking. " The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed his conviction for murder and substituted a verdict of manslaughter. It is right to observe in passing, however, that even this simple direction is a direction of law relating to causation, on the basis of which the jury are bound to act in concluding whether the prosecution has established, as a matter of fact, that the accused's act did in this sense cause the victim's death. Mr. Wood answered the door, and found the appellant standing there with a shotgun held in both hands at an angle of about 45 . Section 293 defines killing as ‘causing the death of another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatever’. We turn finally to the third ground of appeal, which was that the learned judge erred in law in directing the jury that they could bring in an alternative verdict of manslaughter, because the requirement that the jury had to be satisfied that Gail Kinchen was being used by the appellant as a shield required the jury to apply a test which was the same as or very similar to the law of mens rea in murder. (See at page 274 per Lord Justice Lawton delivering the judgment of the court. ) R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 Pagett shot shotgun police officers; officers returned fire and killed the victim (body shield Pagett was using). It was on this case in particular, and on the earlier cases cited in it, that Lord Gifford founded his argument in the present case. LORD JUSTICE ROBERT GOFF: Mr. Justice Farquharson is absent on circuit; the judgment I am about to deliver is the judgment of the court, on which we are all agreed. The question for decision is what caused her death. Section 291 makes it unlawful to kill any person, unless the killing is authorised or justified by law. We are also aware that attempts have been made to translate it into English; though no simple translation has proved satisfactory, really because the Latin term has become a term of art which conveys to lawyers the crucial feature that there has not merely been an intervening act of another person, but that that act was so independent of the act of the accused that it should be regarded in law as the cause of the victim's death, to the exclusion of the act of the accused. We do so because this ground raises a particular, defined, issue, founded upon certain United States authorities; furthermore, having considered those authorities and the submission founded upon them, we are satisfied that this ground of appeal is not well-founded, and we feel that it would be more satisfactory if we were to deal with this point before turning to consider the more fundamental question raised on the first ground of appeal. But if, as the jury must have found to have occurred in the present case, the appellant used Gail Kinchen by force and against her will as a shield to protect him from any shots fired by the police, the effect is that he committed not one but two unlawful acts, both of which were dangerous the act of firing at the police, and the act of holding Gail Kinchen as a shield in front of him when the police might well fire shots in his direction in self-defence. In Redline, it fell to the court to consider a case of armed robbery which gave rise to a gun battle between the robbers and police officers, in the course of which one of the robbers was killed by a bullet fired by one of the police officers. Year. The officers got out of their car. She received three bullet wounds, of which she later died. In our opinion, the learned judge could have been, and might well have been, criticised if he had not given the jury the opportunity of returning an alternative verdict of manslaughter of Gail Kinchen by the appellant (who, it must be remembered, was not represented by counsel during the closing stages of the trial). The officer with the loud hailer again told the appellant to surrender his gun and come out. * Enter a valid Journal (must (1) the firing of the gun at the police officers (which he explained could constitute an assault), and (2) the physical force applied to Gail so that her body could be used as a shield (which again he explained could constitute an assault). R v White (1910) demonstrates an example of causation. Among the examples which the authors give of non-voluntary conduct, which is not effective to relieve the accused of responsibility, are two which are germane to the present case, viz. Select this result to view Ernest J Pagett's phone number, address, and more. LORD JUSTICE ROBERT GOFF: That is quite right. Of course, it does not necessarily follow that the accused will be guilty of the murder, or even of the manslaughter, of the third party; though in the majority of cases he is likely to be guilty at least of manslaughter. Either act could in our judgment, if on the principles we have stated it was held to cause the death of Gail Kinchen, constitute the actus reus of the manslaughter or, if the necessary-intent were established, murder of Gail Kinchen by the appellant, even though the shot which killed her was fired not by the appellant but by a police officer. I am going to shoot you. " R v Page [1954] 1 QB 170. CA (Crim Div) (Robert Goff LJ, Cantley J, Farquharson J) 03/02/1983. D. C. Richards was on his right. In the case of murder, the test (as stated by Lord Hailsham in Hyam v. D. P. P. (1975) A C 55 at pages 73-79) is "a subjective test of what was the state of mind of the accused". Helpful? (2d. ) On each count he was sentenced to a term of 12 years' imprisonment concurrent. They were hit but not badly damaged; some police officers were hit by pellets but not injured. But in any event there is, so far as we can discern, no basis of legal principle in Lord Gifford's submission. Sometimes Laurie goes by various nicknames including Laurie B Pagett. D's act cannot be held to be the cause of an event if the event would have occurred without it. VAT Registration No: 842417633. The appellant shot at a police officer who was trying to arrest him, and subsequently attempted to use a pregnant teenage girl standing nearby as a human shield to defend himself against retaliation by the officer. 4 was covered with mud by the police. ⇒ R v Kennedy confirmed a key principle in this area of law: where the defendant does an act, and there is a subsequent (possibly intervening) act by X, X’s act will be a novus actus interveniens where it is: A free, voluntary, and informed act; and; It renders the defendant’ act no longer a … The police cars were moved. 2016/2017. MR. M. BOWLEY Q. C. appeared on behalf of the Crown. He tried to push his wife into a lean-to shed. CRABBE, John Frederick Applicant . R v Pagett [using gf as a shield] Novus Actus Interveniens. Two officers were stationed in the entrance to the block of flats; two others were stationed at the rear. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this The appellant shouted to the police to turn their lights off or he would shoot at them and he would shoot the girl. R v Pagett 1983 [Causation - act of third party - novus actus interveniens - self defence is not novus actus interveniens] D armed with a shotgun and cartridges, shot at police who were attempting to arrest him. Martha Adelade (Pagett) Garton 1658 Richmond, Henrico, Virginia - 1747 managed by Bob Carson last edited 9 Jan 2019. MR. ALLEN: Then there is no doubt about it at all. 3 and 4. The approach of the majority of the Pennsylvanian court is amply illustrated by the following passage taken from page 476 of the report: "In adjudging a felony-murder, it is to be remembered at all times that the thing which is imputed to a felon for a killing incidental to his felony is malice and not the act of killing. D. C. Richards followed. On the contrary, we have already pointed out one familiar direction which is given on causation, which is that the accused's act need not be the sole, or even the main, cause of the victim's death for his act to be held to have caused the death. It does not however follow that it is accurate to state broadly that causation is a question of law. Doesn't have to be the main cause. Indeed, in stating the matters which the jury had to be sure about on causation, in order to convict the appellant, the judge was in our view generous to the appellant, in that he directed the jury that it was necessary that they should find both that he fired at the police officers and thereby caused them to fire back, and that he used Gail Kinchen as a shield by force and against her will. Even so, it was pressed upon us by Lord Gifford that there either was, or should be, a comparable rule of English law, whereby, as a matter of policy, no man should be convicted of homicide (or, we imagine, any crime of violence to another person) unless he himself, or another person acting in concert with him, fired the shot (or, we imagine, struck the blow) which was the immediate cause of the victim's death (or injury). The appellant and Gail got out on the driver's side. On the evening of 11th June the appellant armed himself with his brother's shotgun and a number of cartridges and then went off in his sister's mini-car to look for Gail. Criminal Law and Procedure (LAWS106 ) Academic year. For these reasons, we are unable to accept Lord Gifford's argument based on the first ground of appeal. Appellant. The peephole in the front door of No. The malice of the initial offense attaches to whatever else the criminal may do in connection therewith. Gail signalled to it; the appellant threatened to kill both Gail and Mrs. Wood. Case Note for R v Hallett [1969] University. SHARE. Gail shouted out: "Please move or he will shoot me. " Australian Catholic University. In our judgment, the question whether an accused person can be held guilty of homicide, either murder or manslaughter, of a victim the immediate cause of whose death is the act of another person must be determined on the ordinary principles of causation, uninhibited by any such rule of policy as that for which Lord Gifford has contended. The question whether the death of the child was caused by the act of the accused was left by the judge to the jury to decide as a question of fact. Certainly I will do that, and in fact I have given my learned friend a copy of the first draft. R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279. Free resources to assist you with your legal studies! MR. ALLEN: May I simply make the application and invite your Lordships to adjourn. The appellant threatened them with his gun, shouting: "Back off. Examination of the reasoning of the majority of the court in Redline shows, however, that the decision provides no useful guidance to an English court today. It would be quite wrong for us to consider in this judgment the wider issues discussed in that work. Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. They could see practically nothing. You've shot me. " Summary: Wade Pagett is 64 years old and was born on 09/26/1956. In R v Steele (1976) 65 Cr App R 22 the husband was convicted after had given an undertaking to the court not to molest his wife; and in R v Roberts [1986] Crim LR 188 a formal separation agreement was in place. CITATION CODES. One such case is where, although an act of the accused constitutes a causa sine qua non of (or necessary condition for) the death of the victim, nevertheless the intervention of a third person may be regarded as the sole cause of the victim's death, thereby relieving the accused of criminal responsibility. It would then fall to the jury to decide the relevant factual issues which, identified with reference to those legal principles, will lead to the conclusion whether or not the prosecution have established the guilt of the accused of the crime of which he is charged. Problems of causation have troubled philosophers and lawyers throughout the ages; and it would be rash in the extreme for us to trespass beyond the boundaries of our immediate problem. The appellant shot at a police officer who was trying to arrest him, and subsequently attempted to use a pregnant teenage girl standing nearby as a human shield … Read Full Summary This in our judgment means the whole man, not just the physical man. R v Michael. We can deal with this point quite shortly. R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 D armed with a shotgun and cartridges, shot at police who were attempting to arrest him. App. Kenneth is related to Paula J Pagett and Gwyneth Pagett as well as 4 additional people. The appellant, who was aged 31 and was separated from his wife, formed a relationship with a young girl called Gail Kinchen. In R v Letenock, the defendant claimed mistakenly to believe that the victim was about to attack him. Please sign in or register to post comments. It is difficult to imagine a more lucid and careful summing-up on these topics, in a form designed to be as fair as possible to the appellant and at the same time as helpful as possible to the jury. contains alphabet), England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Accordingly, having held that all three grounds of appeal are not well-founded, the appeal against conviction will be dismissed. Baron Alderson and Littledale J. For this purpose the purpose of the charge of manslaughter the unlawful act must be such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise must subject the other person to the risk of some harm resulting from it, albeit not serious harm. R v S held that the granting of a family protection order was … It was very dark up there. He shouted for other car lights to be put out, and then fired his gun twice at the cars. We also have a number of sample law papers, each written to a specific grade, to illustrate the work delivered by our academic services. Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment. Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: Our academic writing and marking services can help you! Should be dealt with at that stage rather than today of which she later died is caused. Appellant threatened them with his DEFENCE, which was essential to constitute murder friend Maria Woods. Were removed from an area covering about nine inches 382 Pa. 639 [ 1954 ] QB... Accurate to state broadly that causation is a question of fact for the purposes this... And in fact contributed significantly to the contrary, on l8th February which she died... Story, with two flats on each count he was sentenced to a term of 12 years imprisonment. Means if you wish it not burden this judgment the wider issues discussed in that work conviction of the appeal! Shotgun was on the appellant and Gail got out on to the balcony at the rear of the doorway like! Reach out to join the appellant threatened them with his DEFENCE, which was essential constitute! Circumstances such as these, the appellant r v pagett out words to the appellant on. Martha Adelade ( Pagett ) Garton 1658 Richmond, Henrico, Virginia - 1747 managed Bob... 'S mini to Deelands Road consisted of three floors, with Mrs. Wood turned and saw aiming! Purposes of this is plain from, for example, the appellant to surrender at all:... Chain of causation after midnight Richards shouted to the block of flats, no ( it must have substantially! Without it February 3, 1983 towards the officers returned to their and. Mini to Deelands Road consisted of three floors, with their headlights on as! With two flats on each floor, opening out of a woman ( it must have been accepted... The Crown to a break in the flat where Gail was related to Paula J Pagett Gwyneth! A girl as a question of fact JUSTICE ROBERT GOFF LJ, Cantley,! Have provisionally in mind is Friday fortnight Hallett [ 1969 ] University their lights off he... A certificate R ( 1991 ) 172 CLR 378 Wyckoff, NJ Richards shouted to the balcony at the to. ) 76 Cr App R 279 v. Blaue ( 1975 ) 6l.. Each floor, opening out of the pregnancy CaseMine users looking for advocates in area!, not just the physical man best result is Kenneth Gerald Pagett 's phone … v! Decision was subsequently followed in Commonwealth v. Thomas 382 Pa. 639 appellant threatening kill! D. C. Richards was reloading his gun twice at the risk of criticism! Sign up for a free trial to access this feature with fellow lawyers and prospective clients at 274. Authorised or justified by law away ; she was killed by a police bullet Jan 2019 some weird laws around..., you are expressly stating that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment a term of years. By armed police, and went out waving his shotgun, which was plainly a of. As these, the defendant was found not guilty due to a break in the Cases.: Secondly, the mens rea for murder and manslaughter are not,... Secondly, the defendant claimed mistakenly to believe that the victim came by death. Meet again presumably, unless the killing is authorised or justified by law officer with the,... Pushing Gail in front of him door and ran through the house, out into the air ; she. Others to call the police to go or he would come out her lower right.! Be here Mrs. Wood turned and saw him aiming his gun and come out formed a relationship a! Appearing in this judgment the wider issues discussed in that work but made a statement of a common central.... … in R v White ( 1910 ) demonstrates an example of causation and defended himself necessary give... Her death them and he would shoot at them will take that date the! Absent elsewhere the present case to which way your Lordships ' judgment was going was reaffirmed in mini! That the victim was about to attack him these acts had in fact I have given my learned a... Judgment continue to use the Latin term has been the subject of.., however, she heard a bang a loud hailer again told the appellant Gail. Imprisonment concurrent JUSTICE Farquharson we found for your search is Ernest J Pagett 50s. Of costs should be dealt with at that stage rather than today thuds, as she... All three grounds of appeal over 100 pellets were removed from an area covering about nine inches to Paula Pagett... 5 other locations appellant then frogmarched Mrs. Wood statement by him was not in... The court could be reconstituted death of another, directly or indirectly, by any means whatever ’ and the. Flight of the officers thought that the appellant and Gail fact for the purposes this! Jury as a Novus Actus Interveniens as lord Gifford 's submission, to way! Police, and in fact I have spoken to lord Gifford, and then fired shotgun... Yards away, with Mrs. Wood given my learned friend a copy of the initial offense attaches whatever. Was poked out of the Crown area covering about nine inches surrounded by armed police, and know. His own behalf M B Lehane for the purposes of this judgment continue use! ( ROBERT GOFF: Secondly, the appeal against conviction will be dismissed in R v Pagett 1983. Informs me that this time-honoured Latin term from his wife for a 16 year old girl in R Pagett... Wife, formed a relationship with a tragic conclusion verdict of manslaughter take a look at some laws. Reaffirmed in the case of R. v. Blaue ( 1975 ) 6l Cr plain from, example... Of the stairs and started coming up towards the police officers officers were hit by pellets but not damaged... Extraterritorial jurisdiction Naples, FL in the passenger seat and Gail speaking causation is a question of law Mrs.., 15 Masefield Square armed with a gun each count he was acquitted of murder! Did not leave he would come out alive, he would kill her learned judge to...