Transferred Malice

Transferred malice

The principle of transferred malice means that a Defendant can be guilty of a crime if he intented to commit a similar crime but against a different victim. Under the rule of transferred malice, if A fires a gun at B, intending to kill B but in fact misses and in fact kill c. The intention is transferred from B to C.

The rule is illustrated in R v Latimer when the defendant got into a fight in a pub with another man. He took off his belt and hit the man with the belt. The belt ricocheted off and hit a woman in the face. The defendant was liable for the injuries inflicted on the woman despite the fact that he did not intend to harm her. The mens rea he had to cause harm to the man was transferred to the woman.

The rule was also illustrated in R v Mitchell 1983 when the appellant tried to jump the queue at a Post Office. An elderly man took issue with the appellant's behaviour and challenged him. The appellant hit the old man and pushed him. The man fell back onto others in the queue including an elderly lady who fell and broke her leg. She later died. The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and appealed contending that the unlawful act was not directed at the woman. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld. There was no requirement that the unlawful act be directed at the victim.

However in the case of R v Pembliton 1874 the conviction quashed. His mens rea for an offence against the person could not be transferred to a property offence as they are entirely different offences. The defendant threw some stones into a crowd of people. He wanted to disperse the crowd. A stone hit and smashed a window. He was convicted of criminal damage and appealed.