## 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

1. Whether foresight of a high probability of death or serious bodily harm is sufficient to constitute intention for murder.
2. Whether Hyam’s knowledge of the likelihood of causing death or serious harm satisfied the mens rea element required for a murder conviction.
3. 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.


Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 (HL)