Malice Definition

GLOSSARY

What does Malice mean?

Malice is not to be understood in terms of “wickedness” but in terms of intention to cause harm or at least actual foresight that harm may result.

“Maliciously” is an element of various offences in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and where it is concerned with doing an act it means intending to cause the relevant harm or at least foreseeing the risk of causing that harm.

View the related practice notes about Malice

Transferred mens rea

The principle of transferred malice/transferred mens reaThe Supreme Court has stated that a better description for transferred malice might be ‘transferred mens rea’. The term ‘transferred malice’ has been described as ‘a misleading label’.This article will refer to the principle as ‘transferred mens rea’. This principle becomes relevant where a criminal intention leads to an unintended outcome or harm. It may apply provided that the outcome or harm is the same kind as intended, even if the actual victim is not the same as the intended victim.Latimer exemplifies the basic principle. D tried to assault V with his belt. He missed V and accidentally hit V2. D was found guilty of assault despite not having intended to hit V2. This reasoning was later applied in Mitchell, in which D assaulted V causing him to fall on V2. V2 was elderly and suffered a broken bone that led to her death in hospital. D was convicted of manslaughter despite having had no intention to assault V2. The court held that it...

Complaints—SRA 2011 regime and SRA 2019 regime compared [Archived]

Complaints—SRA 2011 regime and SRA 2019 regime compared [Archived] ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note contrasts the requirements in the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (SRA’s) 2011 and 2019 regimes as well as wider requirements in relation to complaints. There is a separate Practice Note providing more detailed guidance on the SRA’s 2019 complaints requirements—see Practice Note: Complaints—law firms. Regulatory requirements in relation to complaints are contained in various places, including the 2019 Codes, the SRA Financial Services (Conduct of Business) Rules, the SRA Transparency Rules and the SRA Indemnity Rules. Applicable requirements also stem from the Legal Services Board (LSB). These are summarised in the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) Scheme Rules. SRA requirements in the 2019 Codes in relation to complaints specifically apply only when you are providing services to the public or a section of the public. The requirements in the 2019 Codes represent the bare bones of those in the 2011 Code. You will see in the tables below, however, that the pared-down requirements in the 2019 Codes...

Discover our 50 Practice Notes on Malice

Reply (defamation)

Reply (defamation) Claim No.:HQ [insert claim number] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING’S BENCH DIVISION ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST PARTIES: (1) [Insert full name of claimant/first claimant] (2) [[Insert full name of second claimant]] [Claimant OR Claimants] and [Insert full name of defendant] Defendant _____________________________________ REPLY _____________________________________ 1 The [Claimant joins OR Claimants join] issue with the Defendant on his Defence save for the admissions it contains and those averments therein which are expressly admitted below. Paragraph references are to the Defence. 2 The [Claimant denies OR Claimants deny OR that the words complained of in the meanings set out at paragraph 8.1 of the Defence are true. Without limitation to the generality of this denial as to the particulars of truth advanced to support those imputations, the [Claimant pleads OR Claimants plead] as follows: 2.1 [set out the claimant’s/claimants’ response to the Particulars of Truth set out by the defendant in his defence, admitting or denying as appropriate]. 3 It...

Criteria for charging a fee to comply with a data subject request

Criteria for charging a fee to comply with a data subject request This document sets out when and why [insert organisation name] will charge a fee for responding to a data subject request, and how the fee will be calculated. When we will charge a fee We will only charge a fee if: • we consider the request to be manifestly unfounded or excessive, especially if the request is repetitive; and/or • a person who has made a data subject access request later asks for additional copies of their data. Factors [insert organisation name] will consider to determine if a request is ‘manifestly unfounded or excessive’ are explained in the table below. Manifestly unfounded Manifestly excessive The individual clearly has no intention to exercise their right—eg they make a request, but then offer to withdraw it in return for some form of benefit from [insert organisation name]The request is maliciously intended and is being used to harass [insert organisation name] with no real purpose other than to cause disruption,...

Dive into our 3 Precedents related to Malice

Refusing a data subject request—what is ‘manifestly unfounded or excessive’?

Refusing a data subject request—what is ‘manifestly unfounded or excessive’? The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides for enhanced rights for data subjects, including providing rights of access, rectification, erasure and restriction of processing, data portability, a right to object to processing and a right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, with strict time limits for complying. Where a data subject request is manifestly unfounded or excessive, in particular because of its repetitive character, you can either: • charge a reasonable fee taking into account the administrative costs of providing the information or communication or taking the action requested—see Precedent: Response to data subject request—all rights—charging a fee or extension of time to respond • refuse to act on the request Each request must be considered individually on a case-by-case basis. You bear the burden of demonstrating the request is manifestly unfounded or excessive. In order to do so, you should keep a record of your reasoning. Where...

Can a council or its members or officers be personally responsible where there is a breach of a statutory duty?

Can a council or its members or officers be personally responsible where there is a breach of a statutory duty? Local authority In general terms, a local authority is subject to the ordinary principles of civil law and may be convicted of a criminal offence. For an actionable breach of statutory duty claim to brought against a local authority, in the absence of express provision giving rise to a claim for damages, a claimant has to establish the following: • parliament imposed a statutory duty for a limited class of the public • breach of the duty should give rise to a private law action for damages Without a specific statutory regime for remedies such as prosecution, penalties or compensation, a common law action for damages may be difficult for breach of statutory duty although a civil remedy may still be possible. You may wish to consider the cases of X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council and Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council for...

See the 4 Q&As about Malice

Private Client weekly highlights—14 March 2024

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the FATF’s updated guidance on beneficial ownership and transparency of legal arrangements, (2) BH v JH, in which the Court of Protection held that unspecified charities who were to benefit from a residuary gift must be notified when the statutory Will is altered, (3) HMT consults on the effectiveness of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, (4) analysis of some key features of the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act which came into force on 30 January 2024; (5) the Charity Commission updates guidance to reflect CA 2022 changes coming into force, and (6) the publication of Finance (No. 2) Bill 2024.

Broadcaster fails in summary judgment application in defamation claim: statutory qualified privilege defence explored (Salman Iqbal v Geo Tv Ltd)

TMT analysis: Salman Iqbal brought defamation proceedings against Geo TV Ltd over its broadcast (in England) of allegations made about him (the Broadcast) during a political rally in Pakistan (the Rally). Before filing a Defence, Geo TV asserted that it would rely on a defence of qualified privilege under section 15 of the Defamation Act 1996 (DeA 1996) on the basis that the broadcast was a fair and accurate report of a public meeting. It argued that Mr Iqbal had no realistic prospect of defeating its defence, and sought summary judgment on this basis (the Application). The court refused the Application, holding that two of the requirements of the defence under DeA 1996, s 15 were not suitable for summary judgment in this case. Written by Maya Mills, associate and Henry Fox, associate director at Osborne Clarke LLP.

Read the latest 96 News articles on Malice

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Case studies

"We couldn't do as good a job as we do without it. ��Ƶ gives us the security and confidence that we are best serving our clients because the information we are working on is the most accurate we can get"

Avensure

Access all documents on Malice

GET ACCESS NOW

Top

Trial

��Ƶ

GLOSSARY