In R v. Roberts, what was determined about the victim's actions after the assault attempt?

In R v. Roberts, it was determined that the victim's actions after the assault attempt were considered foreseeable. The court held that the victim's response to the threat posed by the defendant was a natural and expected reaction in the circumstances. This perspective emphasizes that when evaluating causation in criminal law, the responses of victims can be predicted based on human behavior in stressful or threatening situations.

The concept of foreseeability plays a crucial role in establishing liability, as it relates to whether the defendant could have anticipated the victim's reaction as a direct consequence of their actions. In this case, the victim escaping from the threat was deemed to be a normal and foreseeable outcome, thus keeping the chain of causation intact.

Understanding this principle helps to clarify the boundaries between the defendant's responsibility for the initial act and any subsequent actions taken by the victim. In contrast, other options would imply a disruption or break in the causal link, which would not accurately reflect the court's findings in this particular case.