TRANSFERRED MALICE (MR)

D wishes to kill V. He sees a person whom he believes to be V and shoots at him, killing him. In
fact, he has killed V’s twin brother. Can D avoid a conviction for murder because his mistake
brought about an unintended result? The law treats his mistake as to the identity of the victim
as irrelevant.

Transferred malice is the principle that the defendant can be guilty if he intended to commit a
similar crime but against a different victim

R v Latimer (1886): The defendant aimed a blow with a belt at a man in a pub after that man had
attacked him. The belt bounced off the man and struck a woman in the face. Latimer was guilty
of an assault against the woman, although he had not meant to hit her. There was, however,
transferred malice as he could be found guilty of hitting the woman.

R v Mitchell (1983): The defendant tried to jump the queue of a Post office. An elderly man took
issue with his behavior and challenged him. The defendant 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 mens rea directed at the old man was transferred to the offence against the old
woman.

ONE LIMITATION

However, where the mens rea is for a completely different type of offence, then the defendant
may not be guilty.

R v Pembliton (1874): The defendant threw a stone, intending it to hit people with whom he had
been fighting. The stone hit and broke a window which was criminal damage. The intention to hit
people could not be transferred to breaking the window as there was a different mens rea for the
two offences