R v Mitchell, [1983] QB 741

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Lily is attending a vibrant street festival and, in frustration, attempts to shove Damon aside after an argument about queue positions at a food stall. Lily’s forceful push unexpectedly causes Damon to stumble backward into Mabel, who is carrying a large container of hot soup. Mabel loses her balance and falls, sustaining severe injuries that later require hospitalization. The prosecution charges Lily with assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Mabel. Lily argues that she did not intend to harm Mabel, and therefore should not be held liable for Mabel’s injuries.


Which of the following is the single best statement regarding whether Lily’s criminal liability can extend to Mabel’s injuries under the doctrine of transferred malice?

Introduction

The rule of transferred malice operates within English criminal law to address situations where a person means to commit a crime against one person or thing but accidentally commits it against another. This rule makes sure that criminal responsibility is not escaped due to unexpected results. R v Mitchell [1983] QB 741 is an instance of transferred malice in a crowded situation, displaying the challenges of proving cause and guilty mind when unexpected harm occurs. The case sets clear requirements for transferred malice to apply, including the need for the actual crime to be the same as the intended crime.

The Facts of R v Mitchell

Mitchell, the person appealing, got into a line dispute at a post office. He pushed an old man, causing him to fall against an old woman. The woman, who was frail, later died from the injuries from the fall. Mitchell was found guilty of manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal upheld Mitchell's guilty verdict. The court decided that Mitchell's unlawful act, the push, was directed at the old man and was an assault. Even though he did not mean to harm the old woman, the court said that transferred malice applied. The guilty mind for assault against the man transferred to the unexpected result of causing the woman's death. The court said that the cause was not interrupted by the old man falling against the woman. Mitchell’s first push was the direct cause of the woman's fall and later death.

Transferred Malice and Cause

The case shows the link between transferred malice and cause. The prosecution had to show that Mitchell had the guilty mind for the crime (manslaughter) and that his act caused the woman's death. The court found that the guilty mind for the intended assault on the man transferred to the manslaughter of the woman. Also, the court decided that the cause link between Mitchell's push and the woman's death was not broken. The fact that the old man fell against the woman was a likely outcome of the first push.

Using the Rule in Other Situations

The rule from R v Mitchell extends beyond crowded situations. It can be applied in different settings where an intended crime against one target results in the same crime against another. For example, if a person throws a stone intending to break a window but hits a person instead, causing injury, transferred malice could apply. The intent to do criminal damage could transfer to the crime of assault, or possibly a more serious crime based on the harm caused.

Limits of Transferred Malice

While R v Mitchell clarifies how transferred malice works, it also shows its limits. The rule only works when the actual crime is the same as the intended crime. If a person intends to do one type of crime but accidentally does another, transferred malice does not apply. For example, if someone throws a stone intending to hit a person (assault) but breaks a window (criminal damage), the rule cannot transfer the guilty mind of assault to criminal damage. Each crime needs its own guilty mind, and they cannot be switched.

Conclusion

R v Mitchell provides a clear example of transferred malice in a crowded situation. The case showed that the rule can work even when the intended victim is different from the actual victim, as long as the crime committed is the same as the crime intended. The court's examination of cause, stating that the cause was not interrupted by the old man falling, is important for understanding how cause works with transferred malice. The lessons from this case, along with understanding its limits, provide useful guidance for understanding and applying transferred malice within English criminal law. It shows the importance of proving a direct cause link between the defendant's act and the result, even when an unexpected victim is involved. This case remains significant for understanding transferred malice and its practical applications.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Related Posts

Explore more resources to support your job and test preparation

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal