在英国，因果关系中断发生在介入原因案件中，中断情形包括自愿行为、巧合、罕见的自然事件、动物的异常行为、严重不合理的过失行为及愚蠢的自我保护等。英国刑法界普遍认为，因果关系是否中断应划分为两个步骤进行认定，事实因果关系依据but-for规则进行判断，法律因果关系的判断有近因说、政策说、普通因果观念说及预见说等。经过长期的司法实践，英国司法界形成了一些用于判断法律因果关系的具体规则，主要包括新介入行为规则、实质而起作用规则、合理可预见性规则等，这些具体判断规则不存在一个共同的上位规则，不同的案件事实需要适用不同的具体判断规则，在实践中发挥了很强的指导功能。我国多数学者也主张对因果关系进行分层次审查，在事实层面的判断上，我国与英国的判断规则本质上不存在差别，主张条件说或but-for规则，而在价值规范层面，我国倾向于选择一个学说去解决所有的因果关系问题，而忽视了针对具体案件提炼出相应的规则，导致在有些案件中如果机械地适用会得出不够公正的结论。通过对我国与英国的因果关系中断判断规则进行比较，并分别运用于实际案例中，对其适用效果进行检验，最终发现英国的新介入行为规则和实质而起作用规则具有很好的实践指导价值。

In Britain, the interruption of causal relationship occurs in cases involving intervention causes. The interruption includes voluntary behavior, coincidence, rare natural events, abnormal behavior of animals, serious unreasonable negligence and foolish self-protection. The British criminal law circles generally believe that whether the causal relationship is interrupted or not should be divided into two steps for determination. The factual causal relationship is judged according to but-for rules. The judgment of legal causal relationship includes proximate cause theory, policy theory, common causal concept theory and foresight theory. After a long period of judicial practice, the British judiciary has formed some specific rules for judging legal causality, mainly including new rules of intervention behavior, rules of action in essence, rules of reasonable predictability, etc. These specific judgment rules do not have a common upper rule, and different specific judgment rules need to be applied to different case facts, thus playing a strong guiding role in practice. Most scholars in our country also advocate a hierarchical review of causality. In fact, there is no difference between China's and Britain's judgment rules in essence. They advocate conditional theory or but-for rule. In value criterion, China tends to choose one theory to solve all causality problems, while ignoring refining corresponding rules for specific cases, resulting in unfair conclusions if applied mechanically in some cases. By comparing the causal relationship interruption judgment rules between China and Britain, and applying them to actual cases respectively, and testing their application effects, it is finally found that the new intervention behavior rules and the substantive action rules in Britain have good practical guiding value.