Facts
- Mrs Hyam, motivated by jealousy, poured petrol through the letterbox of her ex-boyfriend’s new fiancée, Ms Booth, and set it alight with a burning newspaper.
- The fire resulted in the deaths of two of Booth’s children.
- Hyam claimed she only intended to frighten Booth, and did not intend to kill or cause serious harm.
- At trial, the jury was directed that they could convict for murder if satisfied that Hyam knew her actions made it highly probable that serious bodily harm would result.
- Hyam was convicted of murder, and appealed on the ground that the required mens rea—an intention to kill—was not present.
Issues
- Whether foresight of a high probability of death or serious bodily harm is sufficient to constitute intention for murder.
- Whether Hyam’s knowledge of the likelihood of causing death or serious harm satisfied the mens rea element required for a murder conviction.
- Whether the trial judge’s direction to the jury accurately reflected the law on intention and mens rea for murder.
Decision
- The House of Lords, by a majority of three to two, upheld Hyam’s conviction for murder.
- The majority found that realizing that death or serious injury was highly probable was sufficient to establish the intent required for murder.
- Judgments varied: some Law Lords relied on “highly probable”, others on “probability” or “serious risk” as the test for intention.
- Lord Hailsham indicated that deliberately exposing a victim to a serious risk of death or serious injury could constitute the necessary intention for murder.
- The lack of clear or unified reasoning resulted in ongoing uncertainty over the definition of intention in criminal law.
Legal Principles
- Mens rea for murder can, according to this judgment, be satisfied where a defendant foresees a serious risk or high probability of death or serious harm and acts regardless.
- Foresight of consequences (such as high probability of harm) may be treated as evidence of intention, but there is a distinction between foresight and intent.
- The decision blurred the line between intention and recklessness, prompting later clarification.
- Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 reversed the rule in DPP v Smith (that intention includes the natural and probable consequences of one’s act) by emphasizing the subjective view of the accused.
- The case led to significant criticism and confusion, which was subsequently addressed in R v Woollin, establishing the “virtual certainty” test for oblique intent.
- Related cases (R v Moloney, R v Hancock and Shankland, R v Nedrick) further refined the legal test for intention.
- Recklessness, as distinct from intention, is judged on a subjective basis, as clarified in later caselaw.
Conclusion
Hyam v DPP introduced significant ambiguity into English law regarding the mens rea for murder by accepting foresight of probable consequences as a form of intention, a position that was heavily criticized and later redefined by the House of Lords in R v Woollin through the “virtual certainty” test. The case remains historically significant for illustrating the evolution of legal standards for intention in murder.