## Facts

- The defendant attempted to strike a man named George with a belt.
- The belt missed George and struck a woman, Eliza, causing her injury.
- The defendant was charged with intentionally injuring Eliza.
- The incident raised questions about the defendant’s intent and whether malice could transfer to an unintended victim.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant’s intent to harm the original target could be transferred to the actual victim under the principle of transferred malice.
2. Whether transferred malice applies only when the intended and actual crime are the same type.

## Decision

- The Court of Crown Cases Reserved upheld the defendant’s conviction.
- The court determined that the defendant’s malicious intent to harm George transferred to Eliza, the unintended victim.
- It was emphasized that transferred malice applies when the actus reus performed matches the intended harm.
- The court clarified that the kind of crime committed, and not the identity of the victim, is determinative for transferred malice.

## Legal Principles

- Transferred malice permits the mens rea directed at an intended victim to transfer to an unintended victim if the result is the same type of harm.
- The principle applies only when the mens rea and actus reus are for the same type of crime.
- If the intended and actual crime differ, transferred malice does not apply, as shown in later cases such as R v Pembliton.
- The distinction between the type of crime and the identity of the victim is central to the application of transferred malice.

## Conclusion

R v Latimer remains a foundational case on transferred malice, establishing that malice can be transferred to unintended victims when the same type of harm occurs, provided the intended and actual crimes are of the same kind. The case continues to guide legal professionals in determining liability in situations involving unintended victims.


R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359