Glanville Williams's influential 1989 article on causation, “Finis for Novus Actus?”, addressed two pertinent questions: (1) when, and on what grounds, may a person be judged to bear causal responsibility for harms most immediately brought about by the subsequent action of another person (the locus classicus of the novus actus interveniens doctrine), and (2) how should questions of causation be resolved in cases where the potential cause in question constitutes an omission? This article revisits these questions through an engagement with some of the major causation cases decided in the criminal courts in the past decade. The discussion of these cases is set in the broader context of a critique of H.L.A. Hart and Tony Honoré's influential doctrinal-theoretical framework for findings of legal causation, the autonomy doctrine, on which Williams had built his arguments.

中文翻译：

---

NOVUS ACTUS 及以后：在刑事法庭中追究因果责任

Glanville Williams 1989 年关于因果关系的有影响力的文章，“菲尼斯为了新行动?”，解决了两个相关问题：(1) 何时以及基于什么理由，可以判断一个人对另一个人随后的行为最直接带来的损害承担因果责任（经典的轨迹干预新行为原则），以及（2）在所讨论的潜在原因构成遗漏的情况下，应如何解决因果关系问题？本文通过与过去十年刑事法院判决的一些主要因果关系案件的接触来重新审视这些问题。对这些案例的讨论是在对 HLA Hart 和托尼·奥诺雷 (Tony Honoré) 具有影响力的法律因果关系调查结果的教义理论框架的批判的更广泛背景下进行的，即自主学说，威廉姆斯在此基础上建立了他的论点。