R v Pembliton [1874]

1. Facts:

• The defendant (D) threw a stone intending to hit Victim (V).

• The stone missed V but shattered a nearby window instead.

2. Outcome:

• D was not found liable for the damage to the window.

• The court held that the intention to commit an offence against a person could not be transferred to an offence against property.

3. Impact and Analysis:

• No Transfer of Malice: The ruling reinforced that the doctrine of transferred malice does not apply across different types of offences (i.e., from person to property).

• Intent and Offence Type: The case highlighted the principle that the specific intent required for one type of offence (personal harm) cannot be used to establish liability for a different type of offence (property damage).

• Distinct Offences: It underscored the necessity for a clear and relevant intent for each specific type of crime, emphasising that the nature of the intended harm must match the type of offence for liability to be established.