R v Roberts

Ratio Decidendi

Facts

Roberts gave a young woman a lift in his car late at night. As they drove, he made unwanted sexual advances, tried to pull off her coat, and (on her account) referred to having beaten up girls who would not go along with his wishes. Frightened, and while the car was moving at some speed, she opened the door and jumped out, suffering injuries. Roberts was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and argued that her own act of jumping, not his conduct, had caused the injuries.

Judgment Summary

The Court of Appeal upheld Roberts's conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. On causation, the test is whether the victim's response — here, jumping from the moving car to escape his unlawful conduct — was the natural result of what the defendant said and did, in the sense that it was something that could reasonably have been foreseen as a consequence of his behaviour. A victim's escape reaction breaks the chain of causation only if it was so unexpected that no reasonable person could have foreseen it — something 'so daft' as to be the victim's own voluntary act. A woman jumping from a car to avoid a sexual assault was plainly a foreseeable reaction, not a daft one, so Roberts remained liable for the injuries she suffered. The court also confirmed that the mens rea for ABH is simply the mens rea for the underlying assault or battery; the defendant need not foresee the actual bodily harm. Roberts is the leading authority on the 'fright and flight' cases and victims' escape responses.

Key Quotes

Subsequent Treatment