R v Roberts [1972]
Share
R v Roberts [1972] 56 Cr App R 95, [1972] Crim LR 27 revolves around the charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and explores the legal principles of causation, foreseeability, and novus actus interveniens (intervening act).
After a party, the male defendant, R, offered a lift to the female victim in his car, with whom he had not previously met. During the journey, the defendant made unwanted sexual advances, leading to the victim rejecting and attempting to leave the moving vehicle. In the process of escaping, the victim sustained injuries. The defendant was charged with sexual assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, eventually being convicted of the latter but acquitted of sexual assault. The appeal focused on whether the defendant was guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and if he was legally responsible for the injuries resulting from the victim's actions.
The central issues were whether the defendant was guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm; whether the defendant was responsible, both in fact and in law, for the injuries caused by the victim leaving the moving car; whether the trial judge was correct in directing the jury that they could convict the defendant if the victim's actions were a natural consequence of the defendant's acts.
The defendant's appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the trial judge's direction to the jury that they could convict if the victim's act was a natural consequence of the defendant's actions. The test for determining whether a victim's actions could break the chain of causation was whether the act was a foreseeable and natural consequence of what the assailant did or said. If the victim's act was so unexpected that a reasonable person could not have foreseen it, then it would be considered a remote and unreal consequence, breaking the chain of causation. The court concluded that the injuries resulting from the victim's attempt to escape were a foreseeable and natural consequence of the defendant's assault, leading to his conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
In summary, the court held that the defendant could be held responsible for the injuries caused by the victim's actions if those actions were a natural consequence of the defendant's behaviour. If the victim's act was unforeseeable and unexpected, it might break the chain of causation.
After a party, the male defendant, R, offered a lift to the female victim in his car, with whom he had not previously met. During the journey, the defendant made unwanted sexual advances, leading to the victim rejecting and attempting to leave the moving vehicle. In the process of escaping, the victim sustained injuries. The defendant was charged with sexual assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, eventually being convicted of the latter but acquitted of sexual assault. The appeal focused on whether the defendant was guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and if he was legally responsible for the injuries resulting from the victim's actions.
The central issues were whether the defendant was guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm; whether the defendant was responsible, both in fact and in law, for the injuries caused by the victim leaving the moving car; whether the trial judge was correct in directing the jury that they could convict the defendant if the victim's actions were a natural consequence of the defendant's acts.
The defendant's appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the trial judge's direction to the jury that they could convict if the victim's act was a natural consequence of the defendant's actions. The test for determining whether a victim's actions could break the chain of causation was whether the act was a foreseeable and natural consequence of what the assailant did or said. If the victim's act was so unexpected that a reasonable person could not have foreseen it, then it would be considered a remote and unreal consequence, breaking the chain of causation. The court concluded that the injuries resulting from the victim's attempt to escape were a foreseeable and natural consequence of the defendant's assault, leading to his conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
In summary, the court held that the defendant could be held responsible for the injuries caused by the victim's actions if those actions were a natural consequence of the defendant's behaviour. If the victim's act was unforeseeable and unexpected, it might break the chain of causation.
