Legal Case Summary
R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359
Doctrine of Transferred Malice
Facts
The defendant was in an argument with another in a pub. The argument escalated and the defendant attempted to hit the other man with his belt, but missed. While only marginally hitting his intended victim, the defendant’s blow was instead redirected and hit a woman standing next to the intended victim. The woman was severely injured. The defendant was prosecuted for unlawful and malicious wounding, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 20.
Issues
The issue in the case was whether it was possible to convict the defendant of the s.20 OAPA 1861 offence in a situation where he had intended to harm another and only accidently harmed his actual victim. In effect, the question was whether the mens rea of the offence could be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim (with the actus reus) being already directed at the actual victim.
Decision / Outcome
The court held that it is possible to use the doctrine of transferred malice outside of the bounds of murder cases. It was therefore possible to rely upon in in cases such as for a s.20 OAPA situation of inflicting of bodily injury. Pembliton ((1874) LR 2 CCR 119 was distinguished on the grounds that it applied only to a particular kind of malice – malicious injury to property (there transferring malice was not allowed, but this was because there was an attempt to transfer malice from an offence against property to an offence against the person, which are completely different offences). Therefore, the Defendant was held to be liable for the injuries of his actual victim despite having no intention to injure her.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359 and the doctrine of transferred malice as it applies under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The doctrine of transferred malice remains good law in England and Wales. Its continued validity is confirmed by later authorities, including R v Gnango [2011] UKSC 59, where the Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine, and it is consistently applied in criminal law teaching and practice. The distinction drawn from R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2 CCR 119 — that malice cannot be transferred between offences of a fundamentally different nature — also remains accurate. There have been no statutory changes to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 that affect the analysis in this article, and no later case law has overruled or materially qualified Latimer’s core holding. This article is suitable for students as an accurate statement of the law.
