R v Latimer [1886]

1. Facts:

• The defendant (D) swung a belt at Victim 1 (V1) during an altercation.

• V1 moved away, causing the belt to strike and injure Victim 2 (V2) instead.

2. Outcome:

• D was held liable for the assault and injury inflicted on V2.

• The court ruled that the intent to harm V1 was sufficient to hold D accountable for the unintended harm to V2.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• Transferred Malice: The case established that the intention to harm one person can be transferred to another person who is inadvertently harmed by the defendant’s actions.

• Intent: The court confirmed that the defendant’s intent need not be directed specifically at the actual victim, as long as the intent to commit the unlawful act is clear.

• Distinction from Pembliton: Latimer was distinguished from Pembliton on the grounds that Pembliton involved malicious injury to property, while Latimer dealt with personal harm, thereby supporting the doctrine of transferred malice in cases of assault.