R v Pagett
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE ROBERT GOFF |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] EWCA Crim J0203-1 |
| Docket Number | No. 1794/R/81 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 03 February 1983 |
[1983] EWCA Crim J0203-1
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Robert Goff
Mr. Justice Cantley
and
Mr. Justice Farquharson
No. 1794/R/81
LORD T. GIFFORD Q.C. and MR. R. ALLEN appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR. M. BOWLEY Q.C. appeared on behalf of the Crown.
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.
On 27th March, 1981 the appellant, David Keith Pagett, was convicted, after a trial before Mr. Justice Park and a jury, on a number of counts relating to very serious offences – one count of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life; two counts of kidnapping; three counts of attempted murder; and one count of manslaughter. On each count he was sentenced to a term of 12 years' imprisonment concurrent.
The evidence before the jury (which must have been substantially accepted by them) reveals a terrible story, with a tragic conclusion. The appellant, who was aged 31 and was separated from his wife, formed a relationship with a young girl called Gail Kinchen. 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.
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. He arrived at the Woods' house at 77 Brandon Park Road shortly after midnight. Mr. Wood answered the door, and found the appellant standing there with a shotgun held in both hands at an angle of about 45°. The appellant said: "Now try your commando tricks." Mr. Wood slammed the door and ran through the house, out into the garden. He tried to push his wife into a lean-to shed. The appellant followed him. Mrs. Wood turned and saw him aiming his gun at her husband. She knocked the gun into the air; as she did so, she heard a bang. The appellant hit her on the head with the gun and she fell to the ground. The appellant then fired the gun at Mr. Wood as he fled over the garden fence a few feet away. Mr. Wood was shot in his rear left thigh; later over 100 pellets were removed from an area covering about nine inches. The appellant then frogmarched Mrs. Wood away; she was shouting for help as she went. He dragged her off to his car, asking where Gail was. Mrs. Wood directed him to the area where she and her husband had earlier dropped Gail to visit her friend Maria. The appellant still carried his shotgun, which he had reloaded. They arrived at the flat where Gail was, 15 Masefield Square. There were various people there, including Gail. The appellant lined them up, waving his shotgun at them. He hit Gail; as Mrs. Wood tried to grab the gun, he hit her with it in the ribs, knocking her to the floor. She was later found to have cracked or fractured ribs in her lower right chest. He called Gail, who was crying; she went out. He hit her again in the hall. There were thuds, as if she had fallen downstairs. He called for Mrs. Wood; she asked the others to call the police, and went out to join the appellant and Gail.
The appellant drove off in the mini, with Mrs. Wood in the passenger seat and Gail sitting on her lap. He kept on hitting Gail. A police car came up; in it were two police officers who were on the lookout for the mini which was believed to contain an armed man wanted after a shooting incident. Gail signalled to it; the appellant threatened to kill both Gail and Mrs. Wood. 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. The appellant and Gail got out on the driver's side. Gail was hysterical, pleading with the appellant not to shoot Mrs. Wood. The officers got out of their car. The appellant threatened them with his gun, shouting: "Back off. I am going to shoot you." The officers took cover in a nearby garden. The appellant then drove off with Gail. The officers returned to their car and followed the appellant's mini to Deelands Road, where it stopped. Two other officers had arrived at Deelands Road. The appellant and Gail got out of the mini; the appellant was carrying his shotgun, and Gail was walking in front of him. The appellant gestured with his gun at the officers and said: "One more step pal, and I will let you have it." The appellant took Gail into a block of flats, No. 21 Deelands Road.
No. 21 Deelands Road consisted of three floors, with two flats on each floor, opening out of a common central staircase. The appellant took Gail into his flat, No. 4, which was on the first floor. A number of police cars were by then parked opposite the flat, about 250 yards away, with their headlights on. A police officer, using a loud hailer, told the appellant to surrender his gun and come out. The appellant shouted to the police to turn their lights off or he would shoot at them and he would shoot the girl. Headlights were put out. The officer with the loud hailer again told the appellant to surrender his gun and come out. The appellant said that there was no way he would come out alive, he would shoot the girl and himself. The police told him that Mr. Wood was not badly hurt; he refused to come out, saying that he would get 17 years. He shouted for other car lights to be put out, and then fired his gun twice at the cars. They were hit but not badly damaged; some police officers were hit by pellets but not injured. Gail shouted out: "Please move or he will shoot me." The police cars were moved.
By then, police officers trained in the use of weapons and in the handling of "hostage situations" had arrived on the scene. They were split into three teams of two officers each. Two officers were stationed in the entrance to the block of flats; two others were stationed at the rear. The third pair of officers, D.S. Sartain and D.C. Richards, entered the public part of the block of flats, in order to contain the appellant. D.C. Richards, using a loud hailer, called on the appellant to surrender. Shortly before 2 a.m., the appellant brought Gail out on to the balcony at the rear of his flat. He appeared to have a gun in his right hand, which was round her waist, and his left hand was round her neck. He shouted for the police to go or he would shoot; he said that if they did not leave he would kill her. Gail screamed: "Get back or he will kill me." One of the officers called out to the appellant that he was surrounded by armed police, and should come out. The appellant shouted back and took the girl back into the flat.
Meanwhile D.S. Sartain and D.C. Richards had taken up position on the landing on the first floor, outside the adjacent doors of Nos. 3 and 4. There was only one light on in the common staircase, at the rear of the ground floor. The two officers were provided with bullet-proof jackets. The peephole in the front door of No. 4 was covered with mud by the police. There was no sound in the flat; the officers thought that the appellant and Gail might be asleep. Then the door was unlocked and opened. There was no light inside the flat. A shotgun barrel was poked out of the doorway. D.S. Sartain shouted that they were armed. The door was closed. Then it opened again. The shape of a woman (it must have been Gail) was in the doorway. The appellant had his left arm round her neck. The gun was in his right hand, pointing at the police officers. The appellant told them to get downstairs. The officers warned him several times that they were armed, and told the appellant to stand still and drop his gun. The appellant moved towards the officers pushing Gail in front of him.
The two officers retreated to the top landing. It was very dark up there. D.S. Sartain walked along the landing, but could see nothing downstairs; he returned to D.C. Richards at the top of the stairs. He stood by the banister. D.C. Richards was on his right. They could see practically nothing. They could hear the appellant threatening to kill them. The appellant said to Gail: "Talk to them, they don't think I mean it." Gail screamed: "He is going to kill me." The appellant shouted out words to the effect that they were testing him and he was going to show them. A figure loomed round the corner on the upper flight of the stairs and started coming up towards the police officers. As D.C. Richards shouted to the appellant to stand still, the appellant fired his shotgun. D.S. Sartain fired two shots, and D.C. Richards fired four. There was another shotgun blast from the appellant. D.C. Richards fired two more shots, and D.S. Sartain one. The officers had fired their guns instinctively, not taking any particular aim. Gail shouted: "You've shot me. You've shot me." As D.C. Richards was reloading his gun, D.S. Sartain ran down the stairs. D.C. Richards followed. They found the appellant sitting on the floor at the corner of the landing, with Gail sitting on top of him. The shotgun was on the floor: D.S. Sartain slid it out of the appellant's reach. Thirteen unused cartridges were later found in the appellant's pocket. It was plain that he had been using Gail as a shield as he went up the stairs, though the police officers could not see this. She received three bullet wounds, of which she later died. The appellant was unharmed by the bullets fired by the police officers. Very fortunately, the two police officers were unharmed by the shots fired by the appellant, which struck the banister and were deflected up towards the ceiling.
At the trial, the appellant dismissed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Mellor
...explained to the jury by the judge. We think the matter cannot be better put than it was by Goff LJ, as he then was, in the case of Pagett (1983) 76 Cr.App.R 279.” 88 With that opinion this Court respectfully entirely agrees. Goff LJ said at page 288: “ …… where it is necessary to direct th......
-
Dunne v DPP
...murder? Held by O?Malley J that, having considered R v Jordan?(1956) 40 Cr. App. R. 152, R v Steel?[1981] 1 WLR 690 and R v Pagett?(1983) 76 Cr. App. R. 279, to hold, in the circumstances, that the act of the appellant caused the death does not involve visiting upon him the consequences of ......
-
R v Gnango
...of liability for murder which was touched upon in argument. It arises out of a consideration of the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App Rep 279 to which Lord Judge drew attention in the course of the argument. It appears to me to be at least arguable that it was ......
- R v Simon Kennedy
-
Unlawful and Dangerous
...(3d) 551; 31 CR (6th) 187; 195 Man R (2d) 89, Manitoba Court of Appeal at [5].9. Larkin [1943] KB 174; Lamb [1967] 2 QB 981; Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279; Arobieke [1988] Crim LR 314; Ball [1989]Crim LR 730; Lewis [2010] EWCA Crim151.10. Church [1966] 1 QB 59; Lipman [1970] 1 QB 152; Malle......
-
Domestic Abuse, Suicide and Liability for Manslaughter: In Pursuit of Justice for Victims
...recently by the Court of Appeal in Wallace (n 91) at[25] and [86].95. Hughes (n 91) at [23].96. Kennedy (No.2) (n 93).97. R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 at 288–289.98. This principle was asserted in the influential treatise on causation proffered by H.L.A. Hart and T. Honore, T. Causatio......
-
Kennedy and Unlawful Act Manslaughter: An Unorthodox Application of the Doctrine of Causation
...260, per Lord Widgery CJ.13 (1983) 76 Cr App R 279.14 The Latin term ‘novus actus interveniens’ was explained by Goff LJ in R v Pagett(1983) 76 Cr App R 279 at 291: ‘. . . there has not merely been an intervening actof another person, but an act that was so independent of the act of the acc......
-
Rape: Consent
...original harm inflicted (Rv Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152) or completely unforeseeable (R vRoberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95; R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279). Thesecond appeal of Kennedy ((No. 2) [2005] EWCA Crim 685) only ap-peared to reinforce this approach which proceeded on the basis th......