Transferred Malice Flashcards
*R v Latimer:
D aims his belt at E, misses and strikes F. Convicted of unlawfully and maliciously wounding F contrary to S20 of OAPA 1861. His intention was transferred.
Lord Coleridge stated as follows: “it is common knowledge that a man who has an unlawful and malicious intent against another and in attempting to carry it out injures a third person is guilty of what the law deems malice against the person injured because the offender is doing an unlawful act and has that which the judges call general malice and that is enough.”
*R v Mitchell:
D assaulted a 72 yr old man causing him to fall on an even more elderly woman ultimately causing her death. CA upheld his conviction for manslaughter.
*AG Reference no. 3 of 1994:
*Pembliton D threw stone at crowd, missed and broke window instead. Jury found he intended to hit people not the window so conviction for malicious damage quashed. Malicious damage’s MR requires D to have foresight of damage to property rather than foresight of injury to people so they’re separate offences. Note D would have been culpable for malicious wounding had he hit anyone in the crowd.
Where two separate offences share the same MR, proof one’s MR is proof of the other’s.
*Ellis: held intention to import a prohibited substance would constitute intention to import both Class A & B drugs even though each class of drug carries its own separate offence. If D believed he was importing Class B drugs but in fact he was importing a Class A drug, he can be convicted of the latter offence since he had the necessary MR of intention to import a prohibited substance.
*Dogbowu v R: D, with intention to cause GBH or death, aimed a blow with a machete at V who was carrying an infant strapped to her back. Blow missed v and hit the child. D’s appeal was dismissed by the West African Court of Appeal which rejected his claim that he did not intend to kill the child. Accused is not acquitted of murder simply because the blow which caused the death of the victim was intended for another.
D stabbed a pregnant woman causing her GBH as a result of which her baby was born prematurely and died 121 days later due to the prematurity of birth. D was acquitted for murder because the foetus was not considered a living person and so malice could not be transferred to it from the mother.
*Pembliton
D threw stone at crowd, missed and broke window instead. Jury found he intended to hit people not the window so conviction for malicious damage quashed. Malicious damage’s MR requires D to have foresight of damage to property rather than foresight of injury to people so they’re separate offences. Note D would have been culpable for malicious wounding had he hit anyone in the crowd.
Where two separate offences share the same MR, proof one’s MR is proof of the other’s.
*Ellis:
held intention to import a prohibited substance would constitute intention to import both Class A & B drugs even though each class of drug carries its own separate offence. If D believed he was importing Class B drugs but in fact he was importing a Class A drug, he can be convicted of the latter offence since he had the necessary MR of intention to import a prohibited substance.
*Dogbowu v R: D, with intention to cause GBH or death, aimed a blow with a machete at V who was carrying an infant strapped to her back. Blow missed v and hit the child. D’s appeal was dismissed by the West African Court of Appeal which rejected his claim that he did not intend to kill the child. Accused is not acquitted of murder simply because the blow which caused the death of the victim was intended for another.
