Legal Case Summary
R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359
Doctrine of Transferred Malice
Facts
The defendant was in an argument with another in a pub. The argument escalated and the defendant attempted to hit the other man with his belt, striking him slightly. The belt then bounced off and hit a woman standing next to the intended victim. The woman was severely injured. The defendant was prosecuted for unlawful and malicious wounding, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 20.
Issues
The issue in the case was whether it was possible to convict the defendant of the s.20 OAPA 1861 offence in a situation where he had intended to harm another and only accidentally harmed his actual victim. In effect, the question was whether the mens rea of the offence could be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim with the actus reus having affected the actual victim.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Decision / Outcome
The court held that it is possible to use the doctrine of transferred malice outside of the bounds of murder cases. It was therefore possible to rely upon it in a prosecution for unlawful and malicious wounding under s.20 OAPA 1861. R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2 CCR 119 was distinguished on the grounds that it applied only to a particular kind of malice – malicious injury to property (the defendant had intended to injure people but had broken a window; that intention did not establish the malicious injury to property required for the property offence). Latimer’s conviction was therefore affirmed despite his having no intention to injure the woman.
