Coincidence of AR + MR

• What does transferred malice mean?


  It means the mens rea of an offence can be transferred to an unintended victim.
• Which case is known for demonstrating transferred malice?


  R v Latimer (1886).
• What happened in the case of R v Latimer?


  D attempted to hit a man with a belt but accidentally hit a woman instead.
• Why was D in R v Pembliton (1874) not guilty of transferred malice?


  Because the intention to hit people could not be transferred to the window.
• What must be present for an offence to take place regarding actus reus and mens rea?


  Both must be present at the same time.
• How did the courts handle the coincidence of actus reus and mens rea in R v Thabo Meli (1954)?


  Their actions were considered a 'continuing' act.
• What did the Court of Appeal decide in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner regarding mens rea?


  Mens rea was established once D knew the car was on the officer's foot.
• How does R v Church (1965) illustrate the concept of a series of acts in relation to AR and MR?


  D's actions were part of a series that led to the victim's death.
• What are the methods to ensure coincidence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea?


  1. Continuing act doctrine
  2. Series of acts
  3. Transferred malice