R v Mitchell [1983]
Share
R v Mitchell [1983] QB 741 illustrates the principle of transferred malice, where the defendant's intention to harm one person can be transferred, making the defendant liable if harm occurs to another person accidentally.
The appellant attempted to jump the queue at a Post Office, leading to a confrontation with an elderly man who challenged the appellant's behaviour. In the course of the altercation, the appellant hit the elderly man, causing him to fall back onto others in the queue, including an elderly lady who suffered a broken leg. Tragically, the elderly lady later died. The appellant was convicted of manslaughter. The appellant appealed the manslaughter conviction, arguing that the unlawful act was not directed at the woman who ultimately suffered fatal consequences.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The court clarified that there was no requirement for the unlawful act to be specifically directed at the ultimate victim for a conviction of manslaughter. In this case, the appellant's actions, which included hitting the elderly man and causing a disturbance, led to a chain of events resulting in harm to the elderly lady. The court emphasised that the focus was on the unlawfulness of the act itself, and if the act caused harm to another person, the perpetrator could be held criminally liable for the consequences.
The appellant attempted to jump the queue at a Post Office, leading to a confrontation with an elderly man who challenged the appellant's behaviour. In the course of the altercation, the appellant hit the elderly man, causing him to fall back onto others in the queue, including an elderly lady who suffered a broken leg. Tragically, the elderly lady later died. The appellant was convicted of manslaughter. The appellant appealed the manslaughter conviction, arguing that the unlawful act was not directed at the woman who ultimately suffered fatal consequences.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The court clarified that there was no requirement for the unlawful act to be specifically directed at the ultimate victim for a conviction of manslaughter. In this case, the appellant's actions, which included hitting the elderly man and causing a disturbance, led to a chain of events resulting in harm to the elderly lady. The court emphasised that the focus was on the unlawfulness of the act itself, and if the act caused harm to another person, the perpetrator could be held criminally liable for the consequences.
