Two men quarrelled in a public house. One struck at the other with his belt. The glancing blow bounced off and struck the prosecutrix, wounding her severely. He was prosecuted for having unlawfully and maliciously wounded her, contrary to section 20 1861 Act. Counsel for the defendant relied on Pembliton.
Held: Lord Coleridge CJ said: ‘It is common knowledge that a man who has an unlawful and malicious intent against another, and, in attempting to carry it out, injures a third person, is guilty of what the law deems malice against the person injured, because the person is doing an unlawful act, and has that which the judges call general malice, and that is enough.’
Bowen LJ distinguished Pembliton which: ‘was founded not upon malice in general but on a particular form of malice, viz., malicious injury to property.’ and ‘It is quite clear that the act was done by the prisoner with malice in his mind. I use the word ‘malice’ in the common law sense of the term, viz., a person is deemed malicious when he does an act which he knows will injure either the person or property of another.’
Judges:
Lord Coleridge CJ, Bowen LJ
Citations:
(1886) 17 QBD 359
Statutes:
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 20
Citing:
Distinguished – Regina v Pembliton CCCR 1874
The defendant was fighting in the street. He picked up a large stone and threw it at the people he had been fighting with. He missed and broke a window causing damage of a value exceeding pounds 5. The jury convicted the defendant, although finding . .
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1994) HL 24-Jul-1997
The defendant stabbed a pregnant woman. The child was born prematurely and died. The attack had been directed at the mother, and the proper offence was manslaughter.
Held: The only questions which need to be addressed are (1) whether the act . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.270480