Potential Benefit
Easier for the P to prove
Unfair on the D
Takes less time for a case in court
Encourages companies/D’s to comply with
the law
It is harder for the P to prove
It prevents defences being raised as an
excuse
Makes regulating areas of the law that affect
public health easier
Protects the public from companies/D’s who
do not take proper care
As the punishment is normally only a fine
there is little social stigma in being found
guilty
Correct
Benefits
Related case name
Learning Objectives
 Discuss the concept of transferred
malice.
 Apply your new knowledge on
transferred malice to an exam question
in order to demonstrate understanding.
Transferred Malice
 This is where the D’s MR is transferred
from the intended V to the actual V.
 P can use this approach to proving the
MR of the crime as long as:
1. It is a similar type of offence
2. The MR will transfer person to person
or object to object
R v Latimer
R v Pembliton
R v Mitchell
D was arguing with V1 and
V2 in a pub and took off
his belt and struck V1 one
with it.
The belt then bounced of
V1 and struck V2. D was
charged with battery on
V2.
D threw a stone at a
crown intending to hit one
of the people. He missed
and the stone broke a
window instead. D was
charged with criminal
damage.
D became angry in a
queue as the person in
front would not move up.
D pushed V1 who fell into
V2. V2 , an old frail
woman fell over and
broke her hip
R v Mitchell
As it is a similar type of
offence and it is person to
As it is a similar type of
As it isn't a similar type of person TM can be used.
As M intended to push V1
offence and it is person to offence and it person to
person TM can be used.
object TM cannot be used. with this proves the MR of
As L intended to strike V1 The P would have to prove battery which TM allows to
with the belt this proves the either D intended or was transfer automatically to
proving the MR on V2. The
MR of battery which TM
reckless as to causing
old lady died and D was
allows to transfer
criminal damage.
charged with manslaughter
automatically to proving
and found guilty.
the MR on V2.
R v Latimer
R v Pembliton
R v Latimer (1886)
 D appealed on the ground that he had
not intended to hurt the woman and
therefore lacked the MR for the offence.
 The court rejected his appeal stating
that the MR of a crime does not have to
relate to a named V.
Mitchell (1983)
 The court said that although there was
no direct contact between the D and the
V, she was injured as a direct result of
his act….
 So the MR was transferred to the V.
R v Pembliton
 Transferred malice did not apply as the
breaking of the window (criminal
damage) was not the same offence as
hitting someone with a stone (battery).
 For D to be guilty, the prosecution
would have to prove that D had the MR
for criminal damage.
Why?
 To ensure that there is a conviction
when someone is truly guilty.
Now, try to answer this exam question…
Explain the meaning of
‘transferred malice’.
(5 marks)
*June 10
PLAN
 Give a definition of transferred malice.
 When is TM successful? State and
explain a case.
 When does TM not work? State and
explain a case.
Learning Objectives
 Discuss the concept of transferred
malice.
 Apply your new knowledge on
transferred malice to an exam question
in order to demonstrate understanding.