CRIMINAL LAW

Criminal Law

Criminal Law



Referring to the scenario Charlie is liable for intending to hurt his ex-girlfreind with the stone. However the stone actuality hit the shopper and blinded him in one eye. The doctrine of transferred malice applies where the mens rea of one offence can be transferred to another. For example, suppose A throws a stone at B intending to harm B, but misses and hits C. Transferred malice can operate so that the mens rea of A (intention to harm B) can be transferred to the hurting of C. Consequently A is liable for the injury of C, despite the fact that he did not actually intend to harm C. In R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359.The defendant struck a blow with his belt at Horace Chapple which recoiled off him, severely injuring an innocent bystander. The defendant was convicted of maliciously wounding the victim, and appealed on the ground that it had never been his intention to hurt her. The court held that the conviction would be affirmed. The defendant had committed the actus reus of the offence with the necessary mens rea, ie he had acted maliciously. There was no requirement in the relevant act that his mens rea should relate to a named victim. Thus, Latimer's malice was transferred from his intended to his unintended victim.

In addition the Actus reus for the incident is also present as actus reus of assault requires that the victim must apprehend immediate and unlawful violence (Ireland [1998] AC 147). It is not a requirement that the victim is frightened of the unlawful violence, it is merely required that the victim does not want the defendant to do it (St George's Trust [1998] 3 All ER 673 (CA) - this is where an emergency operation was carried out on a victim when she did not consent to it).

We can liken the case of R v Bailey 1983 1 WLR 760 where the defendant was suffering with an ailment having bad feelings he went to his ex-girlfriend's new boy-friend and while there felt unwell. He took a blend of sugar and water, but ate nothing. Ten minutes later the defendant hit the new boy friend on the head with an iron bar. The defendant later claimed to have been unable to control his actions because he was not fully in his senses. The defendant was ascribed under ss18 and 20 of the Offences against persons act 1861. The trial judge directed the jury that the defence of automatism was not available to the defendant because his automatism had been self-induced, and the defendant was convicted under s18. s47 of the Offences Against the Person Again 1861 provides: "whosoever shall be convicted upon an indictment of any assault occasioning actualy bodily harm shall be liable to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding five years.

Problems also arise with the proposals and so, although section 20 is much more serious offense than section 47, they have the same proposal to a maximum of 5 years, it makes no sense, ...