What is the ratio in R v Pembliton?

Transferred malice only applies when the type of harm caused is the same as the type of harm intended - it cannot transfer between different categories of offence.

What did the court decide in R v Pembliton?

The court quashed the conviction because malice intended for assault on persons could not transfer to criminal damage of property.

Why is R v Pembliton important for criminal law?

It establishes the boundary of transferred malice, preventing defendants from being convicted of offences requiring different types of mens rea than they possessed.

What is the ratio in R v Pembliton?

Transferred malice only applies when the type of harm caused is the same as the type of harm intended - it cannot transfer between different categories of offence.

What did the court decide in R v Pembliton?

The court quashed the conviction because malice intended for assault on persons could not transfer to criminal damage of property.

Why is R v Pembliton important for criminal law?

It establishes the boundary of transferred malice, preventing defendants from being convicted of offences requiring different types of mens rea than they possessed.

Criminal1 min read

R v Pembliton

(1874) LR 2 CCR 119Court for Crown Cases Reserved1874

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Criminal cases →

“Transferred malice doesn't apply when the type of harm differs from intended”

Facts

Pembliton was involved in a fight outside a pub and threw a stone at a group of people. He missed his intended targets but broke a window. He was charged with malicious damage to property.

Issues

Whether the doctrine of transferred malice could apply when the defendant intended harm to persons but caused damage to property instead.

Held

The Court for Crown Cases Reserved quashed the conviction. Transferred malice did not apply because the type of harm caused (property damage) differed from the type intended (personal injury).

Significance

This case establishes crucial limitations on transferred malice, showing it only applies within the same category of offence. It's essential for understanding when defendants can and cannot be held liable for unintended consequences of their actions.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of R v Pembliton. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2 CCR 119

Criminal LawTransferred MaliceMens ReaCriminal DamageAssault

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDL

More Criminal cases

R v Reece Martin Kelly

[2026] EWCA Crim 268

R v Richard Alexander Welsh

[2026] EWCA Crim 466

R v Robert Michael Thomas

[2026] EWCA Crim 305

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.