Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) · Goff LJ gave the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
Facts
The defendant, to avoid arrest, took his pregnant girlfriend hostage and, during a standoff with armed police, held her in front of him as a shield while firing at officers. Police fired back and she was killed. He was charged with murder and convicted of manslaughter.
History
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter at trial and appealed to the Court of Appeal against conviction.
Issue
Whether the defendant's actions were the legal cause of the victim's death, or whether the police shooting constituted a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation.
Held
Appeal dismissed; conviction for manslaughter upheld.
Ratio
- A defendant who uses a victim as a human shield is a legal cause of her death if she is killed by police gunfire fired in reasonable self-defence or in performance of their duty, because such a response is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct and does not break the chain of causation.
Key reasoning
- The defendant's act need not be the sole or even the main cause of death, provided it contributed significantly to it.
- The defendant's conduct created the situation in which the police were forced to respond.
- The police shooting was a foreseeable and natural response to the defendant's use of a human shield and firing at police.
- Therefore, the chain of causation was not broken by the police action.
Where it fits in the module
This case is central to Topic 1's discussion of causation, illustrating the principle that a third party's intervention (here, police) does not break the chain of causation if it is a foreseeable response to the defendant's conduct. It contrasts with cases like Jordan (1956) where medical treatment broke the chain, and aligns with Smith (1959) and Cheshire (1991) on the operating and substantial cause test. It also relates to Roberts (1971) on foreseeable victim responses.
Criticisms
- The decision may extend liability too far by treating police gunfire as a foreseeable consequence, potentially ignoring the police officer's independent agency.
- The foreseeability test is vague and may lead to inconsistent application.
- Some argue the police action is a free, deliberate, and informed intervention that should break the chain of causation.
- The case creates a tension with the principle that a novus actus interveniens must be voluntary and independent.
Written with AI (nvidia/nemotron-3-ultra-550b-a55b) on 1 November 2026, reviewed for errors by a second model (claude-sonnet-5.5 (Claude Code reviewer)). Read the case itself at (1983) 76 Cr App R 279, [1983] Crim. L.R. 393. Spotted an error? Tell us.