In R v Pagett (1983), why was the shooting not considered a novus actus interveniens?

In R v Pagett, the issue of whether the shooting constituted a novus actus interveniens – which refers to a new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation – was closely examined in relation to the conduct of the police. The correct choice indicates that the police acted in self-defense and their conduct was involuntary in nature.

In the case, the police opened fire on Pagett, who was using his pregnant girlfriend as a human shield during a shoot-out. The court ruled that the actions of the police were justifiable and responsive to an immediate threat. They were acting to protect both themselves and the public, which is recognized under the principles of self-defense. Given that the police were responding to an emergency situation and their actions were involuntary, this demonstrated that their response did not constitute a new, independent act that would sever the causation link to Pagett's initial unlawful conduct.

Thus, the rationale for the court's decision rested on the idea that the police did not act outside the bounds of what was considered necessary self-defense. Their actions were deemed to fall within the realm of reasonable response to a direct threat, making it inappropriate to label it as a novus actus interveniens in this context. The circumstances created