What is the ratio in R v Roberts?

A defendant is liable for injuries sustained by a victim escaping unlawful conduct if the victim's response was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.

What did the court decide in R v Roberts?

The Court of Appeal upheld the assault conviction, holding that the defendant was liable for injuries the victim sustained jumping from his car to escape sexual advances.

Why is R v Roberts important for criminal law?

It established the key test for causation in cases where victims injure themselves whilst escaping, fundamental to understanding liability in assault cases.

What is the ratio in R v Roberts?

A defendant is liable for injuries sustained by a victim escaping unlawful conduct if the victim's response was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions.

What did the court decide in R v Roberts?

The Court of Appeal upheld the assault conviction, holding that the defendant was liable for injuries the victim sustained jumping from his car to escape sexual advances.

Why is R v Roberts important for criminal law?

It established the key test for causation in cases where victims injure themselves whilst escaping, fundamental to understanding liability in assault cases.

Criminal1 min read

R v Roberts

(1972) 56 Cr App R 95Court of Appeal1972

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“Defendant liable for victim's unforeseeable reaction to assault”

Facts

The defendant made unwanted sexual advances towards a woman in a moving car. When she resisted, he attempted to remove her coat. Fearing further assault, she jumped from the moving vehicle and sustained injuries.

Issues

Whether the defendant could be held liable for injuries sustained when the victim jumped from a moving car, even though this reaction was not reasonably foreseeable.

Held

The defendant was liable for the victim's injuries. The chain of causation was not broken by the victim's act of jumping from the car.

Significance

This case established an important principle of causation in criminal law, confirming that defendants are liable for all natural and probable consequences of their unlawful acts, even when the victim's specific reaction was unforeseeable.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of R v Roberts. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

R v Roberts (1972) 56 Cr App R 95 (CA)

Criminal LawCausationAssault

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDLSQE1

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.