Transferred malice where the blow strikes an unintended victim
Ryan Doyle has a long-running feud with Marcus Bell. Outside a nightclub in Newcastle, Ryan swings an iron bar at Marcus's head, intending to cause him really serious injury. Marcus ducks, and the bar strikes Leah Ward, a bystander whom Ryan had not noticed. Leah dies from a head injury. Ryan is charged with Leah's murder. He says he had no intention of harming Leah and did not know she was there.
Which of the following best describes Ryan's liability for Leah's death?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer E: He is guilty of murder, because his intention to cause serious injury to Marcus is transferred to Leah, the person he actually killed.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Where D intends to kill or seriously injure V1 but accidentally kills V2, his intent is transferred and he is guilty of murdering V2.
Transferred malice where the blow strikes an unintended victim
Under the doctrine of transferred malice, where a defendant intends to kill or cause serious injury to one person but accidentally kills another, he is guilty of murder of the person actually killed. The mens rea he had towards the intended victim is matched with the actus reus committed against the actual victim, provided the harm is of the same kind (here, injury to a person). Ryan swung the iron bar intending to cause Marcus really serious injury, which is sufficient mens rea for murder. That act killed Leah. It is irrelevant that he did not intend to harm Leah or know she was present. The Supreme Court in R v Gnango [2011] UKSC 59 described this as a long-recognised principle of the common law. Ryan is therefore guilty of murdering Leah.
Why A is wrong: Transferred malice supplies the intent; the absence of intent towards Leah personally does not reduce murder to manslaughter.
Why B is wrong: No foresight of harm to the actual victim is required where the intent is transferred.
Why C is wrong: The virtual certainty direction concerns oblique intention; Ryan directly intended serious injury.
Why D is wrong: The doctrine applies to an unforeseen bystander; knowledge of the actual victim is not required.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Murder: an intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient mens rea
Which of the following best describes Kofi's liability?
Oblique intention and the virtual certainty direction (R v Woollin)
Which of the following is the correct direction the judge should have given on intention?
Death over three years after the injury: Attorney General's consent (Year and a Day Rule Act 1996)
Which of the following best describes the position on bringing a murder prosecution against Bethany?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.