The complainant travelled in the appellant’s car. As he was driving, he had assaulted her in the car but not so as to cause her actual bodily harm. However, as his assault continued, she opened the car door and jumped out. This caused her to sustain actual bodily harm. He appealed his conviction.
Held: The appeal failed. The proper test was not whether the defendant in fact foresaw the conduct of the victim which resulted in the actual bodily harm, but whether that conduct could reasonably have been foreseen as the consequence of what he was saying or doing: ‘The test is: Was it the natural result of what the alleged assailant said and did, in the sense that it was something that could reasonably have been foreseen as the consequence of what he was saying or doing.’
 56 Cr App R 95 CA
Offences Against The Person Act 1861 47
England and Wales
Approved – Regina v Savage; Director of Public Prosecutions v Parmenter HL 7-Nov-1991
The first defendant had been convicted of wounding. She had intended to throw beer over her victim, but her glass slipped from her hand, and cut the victim. The second defendant threw his three year old child in the air and caught him, not realising . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Santa-Bermudez Admn 13-Nov-2003
The prosecutor appealed a finding of no case to answer on an accusation of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The victim, a police officer, was searching the pockets of an arrested person, when she was injured by a hypodermic needle. She had . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.182276