R v Latimer

Ratio Decidendi

Fakty

During a quarrel in a public house, Latimer aimed a blow with his belt at a man named Chapple with whom he had been fighting. The belt struck Chapple but bounced off and hit a woman, Ellen Rolston, who was standing nearby, wounding her severely in the face. Latimer had no intention of harming the woman; his aim had been at the man.

Podsumowanie orzeczenia

The Court for Crown Cases Reserved upheld Latimer's conviction for unlawfully and maliciously wounding the woman under s.20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Although he had intended to strike the man and not the woman, the malice (the intention to wound) that accompanied his unlawful act was 'transferred' to the person actually injured. Because the harm he caused was of the same kind as the harm he intended — a wounding of a person — and resulted from the same unlawful act, his guilty state of mind and the actus reus combined to make him liable for the injury to the unintended victim. It made no difference that the particular person injured was not the person he meant to hit. The decision is the classic statement of the doctrine of transferred malice, later confirmed by the House of Lords in Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 1994).

Kluczowe cytaty

Późniejsze zastosowanie