- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Roberts (1971) - Causation & "Daftness" in Assault
Citation: Roberts (1971)
Context: Defendant (D) made unwanted advances towards the Victim (V) while driving a car. V jumped out of the moving car and sustained injuries.
Charge: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Issue: Whether V's act of jumping out of the car broke the chain of causation between D's assault and V's injuries.
Holding: D was found guilty. V's reaction did not negate causation.
Reasoning (per Stephenson LJ):
A defendant can be held liable for injuries sustained by a victim who attempts to escape an assault, even if the victim's actions contribute to those injuries, as long as the victim's actions were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's assault. The victim's reaction must not be so unexpected or disproportionate to the threat that it is considered a novus actus interveniens.
Study Questions:
Citation: Roberts (1971)
Context: Defendant (D) made unwanted advances towards the Victim (V) while driving a car. V jumped out of the moving car and sustained injuries.
Charge: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Issue: Whether V's act of jumping out of the car broke the chain of causation between D's assault and V's injuries.
Holding: D was found guilty. V's reaction did not negate causation.
Reasoning (per Stephenson LJ):
- Causation is established if V's reaction was reasonably foreseeable.
- The chain of causation is broken (i.e., novus actus interveniens) only if V's actions were "so 'daft' . or so unexpected . that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee it."
- This introduces the concept of proportionality. The victim's reaction must be proportionate to the threat presented by the defendant's actions.
- If the reaction is disproportionate to the threat (i.e., "daft"), it is considered a novus actus interveniens.
A defendant can be held liable for injuries sustained by a victim who attempts to escape an assault, even if the victim's actions contribute to those injuries, as long as the victim's actions were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's assault. The victim's reaction must not be so unexpected or disproportionate to the threat that it is considered a novus actus interveniens.
Study Questions:
- What constitutes a "reasonably foreseeable" reaction in the context of assault?
- How does the "daftness" test from Roberts affect the assessment of causation?
- How does this case relate to the general principles of causation in criminal law?
- Under what circumstances might a victim's actions break the chain of causation following an assault?
- Why is it significant that the court considered what a "reasonable man" would foresee?
0 Comments