The case of Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 is a landmark decision in English criminal law dealing primarily with the mental element (mens rea) of murder. It examines the nature of intention required to establish liability for murder, particularly whether foresight of a serious risk of death or grievous bodily harm is sufficient to amount to the necessary intention, or whether a direct intention to kill or cause serious injury is required. The House of Lords’ ruling in this case clarified important principles surrounding intention and foresight in the context of homicide.
Facts of Hyam v Director of Public Prosecutions
The defendant in Hyam v DPP was a woman named Hyam who had been in a relationship with a man. Following the end of this relationship, the man became engaged to another woman, Ms Booth. Motivated by jealousy and anger, Hyam went to the fiancée’s home and poured petrol through the letterbox, which she then ignited using a rolled-up newspaper.
Although Ms Booth was able to escape from the house, the fire tragically resulted in the deaths of two young children who suffocated due to the fire and smoke. Hyam did not warn anyone about the fire and left the scene immediately. As a result, Hyam was charged with murder for the deaths caused by the fire.
At trial, Hyam contended that her sole intention was to frighten Ms Booth, the new fiancée, and that she did not intend to kill or seriously injure anyone. She argued that the mens rea for murder required a specific intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, which she denied having. Nonetheless, the jury convicted her of murder.
Hyam appealed against her conviction, and after the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal, the case was taken to the House of Lords for final determination.
Legal Issues
The principal legal question in Hyam v DPP concerned the mens rea for murder, specifically:
- Whether the defendant’s mens rea for murder could be satisfied by mere foresight of the risk of death or serious bodily harm, or
- Whether the mens rea required an actual intention to kill or cause serious injury.
In other words, the issue was whether Hyam’s knowledge of the risk created by her actions, coupled with a deliberate decision to proceed, was enough to satisfy the mental element for murder despite her claimed lack of desire to cause death or serious injury.
Hyam v Director of Public Prosecutions Judgement
The House of Lords, by a majority of three to two, dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding Hyam’s conviction for murder.
Lord Hailsham, delivering the leading judgement, clarified the law on intention and foresight in murder cases. He held that a person has the requisite mens rea for murder if they knowingly commit an act directed at another person, with the intention of causing death or serious injury. However, importantly, Lord Hailsham also established that intention can be inferred where the defendant is aware of a serious risk that death or serious bodily harm will ensue from their deliberate acts.
He stated:
“There is not merely actual foresight of the probable consequences, but actual intention to expose his victim to the risk of those consequences whether they in fact occur or not.” [Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 at 76]
Lord Hailsham emphasised that Hyam was subjectively aware of the risk posed to the sleeping occupants of the house. The judge had properly directed the jury that this awareness amounted to intention to expose the victims to the risk of death or serious injury, regardless of whether such consequences actually resulted. He noted that this step from foresight to intention was not merely a theoretical construct but a practical necessity in the circumstances of the case.
Viscount Dilhorne supported this reasoning, noting that where a defendant acts deliberately, knowing that grievous bodily harm is a highly probable consequence, it is justified to say that the defendant intended such harm, whatever other intentions they might have had.
Lord Cross also dismissed the appeal but suggested that the threshold for probability could be less stringent. He criticised the trial judge’s use of the word “highly” probable, considering that mere probability might suffice to establish intention.
The dissenting opinions were delivered by Lord Diplock and another law lord. Lord Diplock dissented on the grounds that the law of homicide traditionally required an intention to kill or cause bodily injury known to be likely to endanger life. He believed that Hyam’s intention to frighten did not meet this standard, and thus the verdict of murder should be reduced to manslaughter.
Legal Principles Established
Hyam v DPP confirmed several key legal principles concerning the mens rea for murder:
- Intention may be established by foresight of serious risk: The House of Lords held that if a defendant deliberately exposes another person to a serious risk of death or grievous bodily harm, knowing this risk to be highly probable, this suffices as intention for murder.
- Desire for the consequence is not required: It was emphasised that it is not necessary for the defendant to desire the death or serious injury for the mens rea of murder to be established. Knowledge and deliberate exposure to the risk suffice.
- Subjective awareness is critical: The defendant’s actual (subjective) awareness of the risk is crucial in establishing intention.
- The jury may infer intention from foresight: The jury can properly be directed to find intention if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant foresaw the risk as highly probable and proceeded anyway.
Conclusion
In summary, the case of Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 established that for murder, the mens rea requirement of intention includes not only the direct intention to kill or cause serious injury but also extends to deliberate acts done with knowledge of a serious risk that death or grievous bodily harm will result.
The House of Lords’ majority ruling confirmed Hyam’s conviction, holding that her deliberate act of setting fire to the house, knowing it was highly probable that death or serious injury would ensue, fulfilled the mental element for murder.
