R v Roberts (1971) 56 Cr App R 95<\/strong><\/p>\n Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm \u2013 Causation \u2013 Foreseeability \u2013 Novus Actus Interveniens<\/p>\n After a party the male defendant R, gave the female victim a lift in his automobile.\u00a0 The victim and the defendant had not met before.\u00a0 The defendant began making sexual advances towards the victim which were rejected before attempting to pull off her coat.\u00a0 The victim then opened the door and jumped out of the moving vehicle sustaining injuries as a result.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The defendant appealed.<\/p>\n Was the defendant guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm?\u00a0 Was the defendant responsible both in fact and in law for the injuries caused by her leaving the moving car?\u00a0 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\u2019s injuries as a result of the victim\u2019s behaviour being a natural consequence of the defendant\u2019s acts?<\/p>\n The defendant\u2019s appeal was dismissed.\u00a0 The trial judge was right to direct the jury that they could convict if they thought the victim\u2019s act had been a natural consequence of the defendant\u2019s actions.\u00a0 The test for whether a victim\u2019s 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?\u00a0 If the victim\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" After a party the male defendant R, gave the female victim a lift in his automobile.\u00a0 The victim and the defendant had not met before.\u00a0 The defendant began making sexual advances towards the victim which were rejected before attempting to pull off her coat.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-6185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cases","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nFacts<\/h3>\n
Issue<\/h3>\n
Decision\/Outcome<\/h3>\n