The case of R v Roberts [1972] 56 Cr App R 95 is one of the most important authorities in English criminal law on the principles of causation and foreseeability, particularly in relation to the concept of novus actus interveniens (an intervening act). The decision clarifies when a defendant will remain liable for injuries sustained by a victim who reacts to the defendant’s conduct in a way that causes harm.
This case is often cited in discussions about assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The judgement in R v Roberts provides a clear test for determining when a victim’s own act breaks the chain of causation and when it remains a natural consequence of the defendant’s assaultive behaviour.
Facts of R v Roberts Case
After attending a party, the male defendant, Roberts, offered a lift to a female victim whom he had not met before. During the car journey, Roberts began making unwanted sexual advances towards her. His behaviour escalated when he attempted to pull off her coat despite her rejections.
The victim, frightened and desperate to escape, opened the car door and jumped out of the moving vehicle. As a result of this act, she sustained multiple injuries. The defendant was subsequently charged with two offences: sexual assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH).
At trial, the defendant was acquitted of the sexual assault charge but convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The conviction meant that the court accepted that his actions were responsible for the injuries suffered by the victim, even though she had voluntarily jumped from the moving vehicle.
Roberts appealed against this conviction, arguing that the victim’s decision to jump from the car was so unreasonable and unexpected that it constituted a novus actus interveniens — a new and independent act that broke the chain of causation between his conduct and her injuries.
Issues Before the Court
The appeal in R v Roberts [1972] raised several significant issues relating to criminal liability and causation:
- Whether the defendant could be held guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm when the injuries were sustained as a result of the victim’s own actions.
- Whether the defendant was legally responsible, both in fact and in law, for the injuries caused when the victim jumped from the moving car.
- Whether the trial judge’s direction to the jury was correct, particularly the instruction that they could convict the defendant if they considered that the victim’s reaction was a natural consequence of the defendant’s behaviour.
These questions went to the heart of how far a defendant’s liability extends when a victim takes an extreme or risky action in response to the defendant’s unlawful conduct.
Arguments and Legal Reasoning in R v Roberts
At the heart of R v Roberts was the principle of causation in criminal law. For a conviction of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the prosecution had to prove that the defendant’s unlawful act was both the factual and legal cause of the victim’s injuries.
The factual question — whether the defendant’s act caused the injuries — was relatively straightforward. The more complex issue was one of legal causation: whether the chain of causation had been broken by the victim’s decision to jump from the car.
The defence argued that the victim’s behaviour was so unreasonable that it could not have been foreseen by the defendant or by a reasonable person. Therefore, they contended that the victim’s own voluntary act should absolve the defendant of criminal responsibility.
However, the court in R v Roberts [1972] focused on whether the victim’s reaction was a natural consequence of the defendant’s actions. The test was one of foreseeability: could a reasonable person in the defendant’s position have foreseen that the victim might act in such a way in response to his conduct?
If the victim’s reaction was foreseeable, then the defendant would remain legally responsible for the injuries, and the chain of causation would remain unbroken. Only if the victim’s reaction was so unexpected or “daft” that no reasonable person could have anticipated it would the causal link be broken.
R v Roberts Judgement
The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal and upheld the conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The court held that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury by stating that they could convict the defendant if they considered that the victim’s actions were a natural consequence of the defendant’s conduct. The victim’s leap from the car was not deemed to be an unreasonable or unforeseeable reaction given the circumstances — she had been frightened by the defendant’s sexual advances and was attempting to escape from what she reasonably perceived as a threat.
The court in R v Roberts therefore confirmed that the defendant’s actions were both the factual and legal cause of the victim’s injuries. Her reaction, though extreme, was one that a reasonable person could have foreseen as a possible outcome of the defendant’s threatening behaviour.
The key principle established by the decision is that a victim’s act will not break the chain of causation unless it is so unexpected that no reasonable person could have predicted it. As long as the victim’s behaviour is a foreseeable response to the defendant’s actions, the defendant remains liable for the resulting harm.
Legal Principles Established in R v Roberts
The case of R v Roberts [1972] 56 Cr App R 95 set out a clear test for determining when an intervening act (or novus actus interveniens) breaks the chain of causation in criminal law. The principle can be summarised as follows:
- If the victim’s reaction is a natural consequence of the defendant’s conduct, the defendant remains legally responsible for any resulting harm.
- If the victim’s act is so unexpected or unforeseeable that a reasonable person could not have anticipated it, the chain of causation is broken, and the defendant will not be held liable for the injuries.
The decision also reaffirmed that questions of foreseeability and reasonableness are matters for the jury to determine based on the facts of each case.
In R v Roberts, the court concluded that it was entirely foreseeable that a woman might attempt to flee a moving vehicle to escape unwanted sexual advances. As such, the defendant could not rely on her reaction as a means of escaping liability.
Conclusion
In conclusion, R v Roberts [1972] 56 Cr App R 95 is a landmark case in the area of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the doctrine of causation. The decision firmly established that a defendant will remain liable for a victim’s injuries if the victim’s actions were a natural and foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct.
The court’s reasoning balances fairness with responsibility: defendants cannot evade liability by pointing to the victim’s desperate or instinctive attempts to escape harm. The ruling in R v Roberts continues to guide courts in assessing whether a victim’s conduct constitutes a novus actus interveniens or remains part of the causal chain initiated by the defendant’s unlawful act.
By reaffirming that foreseeability is the key test in such cases, R v Roberts remains a cornerstone of English criminal law, ensuring accountability for those whose threatening or aggressive actions foreseeably lead to another’s injury.