“Unreasonable victim reaction can break causation if unforeseeable and unreasonable.”
Williams and others attempted to rob a hitchhiker in their car. The victim jumped from the moving vehicle at about 30mph and died from head injuries sustained when he hit the road.
Whether the victim's act of jumping from a moving car was a novus actus interveniens that broke the chain of causation between the robbery attempt and his death.
The Court of Appeal held that the victim's reaction would only break the chain of causation if it was so unreasonable as to be unforeseeable.
This case establishes the test for when a victim's own actions can break the chain of causation. It balances the thin skull rule with recognition that some victim responses may be so unreasonable as to constitute an intervening act.
You're reading the free summary of R v Williams. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R v Williams [1984] 78 Cr App R 276 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.