Recklessness and Transferred Malice
Subjective recklessness occurs when someone knows there's a risk but takes it anyway. It's not about being careless - it's about consciously accepting danger might happen.
The Cunningham case perfectly illustrates this principle. When a man ripped out a gas meter to steal money, he wasn't guilty of poisoning his neighbour because he genuinely didn't realise gas would leak. No awareness of risk means no recklessness.
Transferred malice is brilliant in its simplicity - if you intend to commit a crime against one person but accidentally harm someone else instead, you're still guilty. Your criminal intent transfers to the actual victim.
Cases like Mitchell and Latimer show how this works in practice. Whether it's pushing someone who falls onto another person, or a belt ricocheting off one target to hit someone else, the law holds you responsible. However, there's a crucial limitation - the crimes must be similar. In Pembliton, throwing stones at people couldn't transfer to property damage when a window smashed.
Key Point: Transferred malice only works when the intended crime and actual crime are of the same type.
