Law Case Summary
R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95
Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm – Causation – Foreseeability – Novus Actus Interveniens
Facts
After a party the male defendant R, gave the female victim a lift in his automobile. The victim and the defendant had not met before. The defendant began making sexual advances towards the victim which were rejected before attempting to pull off her coat. The victim then opened the door and jumped out of the moving vehicle sustaining injuries as a result. The defendant was charged with sexual assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was convicted at trial of assault occasioning actual bodily harm but acquitted of sexual assault. The defendant appealed.
Issue
Was the defendant guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm? Was the defendant responsible both in fact and in law for the injuries caused by her leaving the moving car? Was the trial judge correct to direct the jury that they could convict the defendant if they considered that the victims actions caused the victim’s injuries as a result of the victim’s behaviour being a natural consequence of the defendant’s acts?
Decision/Outcome
The defendant’s appeal was dismissed. The trial judge was right to direct the jury that they could convict if they thought the victim’s act had been a natural consequence of the defendant’s actions. The test for whether a victim’s own acts were not to be considered capable of breaking the chain of causation was whether the act was a natural consequence or result of what the assailant did or said? If the victim’s act was so unexpected that it could not be foreseen by a reasonable man then the act would be a remote and unreal consequence of the assault and as such would then break the chain of causation.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains legally accurate. R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95 continues to be good law and is regularly cited in English criminal law on causation and assault occasioning actual bodily harm under s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The principle established — that a victim’s own act will not break the chain of causation provided it was a reasonably foreseeable response to the defendant’s conduct, and will only constitute a novus actus interveniens if it was so daft or unexpected that no reasonable person could have anticipated it — has been consistently affirmed in subsequent cases, including R v Williams and Davis [1992] 1 WLR 380 (Court of Appeal), which refined and applied the same test. There have been no statutory or case-law developments that undermine or reverse the principles described. Readers should note that Roberts is frequently read alongside Williams and Davis for a complete picture of the relevant causation principles in this context.
