transferred malice and coincidence Flashcards
booklet 5
transferred malice rule
The rule is that the mens rea can be transferred from one person to another, but it cannot be transferred from one offence to another.
transferred malice cases (2)
R v Latimer
R v Pembliton
R v Latimer
Man intended to hit man with his belt after an argument in a pub. Instead he hit a woman standing nearby.
He was guilty as his intention was transferred.
R v Pembliton
D threw stones at a group of people. He missed and broke a nearby window with the stones.
He intended to break up the crowd and was reckless in regards to injury to the crowd.
However he was not guilty of criminal damage, as the intention could not be transferred between offences
exception for actus reus and mens rea having to be present
where the actus reus is seen as either a continuous act, or there are a series of acts forming the actus reus
cases where mens rea and actus rea don’t exist at the same time but still guilty
Fagan v MPC
R v Thabo Meli
fagan v mpc
D accidentally drove his car onto a police officer’s foot, unaware he had done so. However, when asked to remove the car he refused to do so.
He was guilty as this was seen as a continuous act.
R v Thabo Meli
Four men beat the victim and – believing he was dead – threw his body off a cliff. The victim was actually alive when he was thrown, but died of hyperthermia at the bottom of the cliff. They argued AR and MR did not coincide.
They were guilty because it was a series of connected acts, with AR and MR present during those acts
what case is an example of a continuous act
fagan v mpc
in what case is there a series of acts
R v Thabo Meli
