Legal Case Summary
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
Whether mens rea for murder is subjective or objective
Facts
Jim Smith (S) was ordered by a police constable to stop his car which contained stolen goods, however S accelerated instead. The police constable jumped onto the car, but fell off and was killed by another oncoming car after S violently swerved the car. S was convicted of murder and appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Issue
The issue in question was whether the mens rea of intent for murder is a subjective or an objective test. S claimed that he could not be convicted of murder because he did not have the requisite mens rea of intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. He claimed that the mens rea for murder is subjective, and the trial judge had misdirected the jury in stating that the mens rea test for murder was whether a reasonable man would have contemplated that grievous bodily harm was a likely result from J’s actions.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Criminal Appeal, finding the test to be subjective and the trial judge to have misdirected the jury, allowed the appeal and substituted a verdict of manslaughter. The case was then appealed by the prosecution to the House of Lords. The House of Lords held that an objective test was applicable to the mens rea of intent for murder, therefore there was no misdirection and the murder conviction was to be reinstated. Where the accused is capable of forming an intent in that he is not insane nor suffering from diminished responsibility, any actual intention is immaterial, and the mens rea test for a conviction of murder is what in all the circumstances the ordinary reasonable man would have contemplated to be the natural and probable result of the grievous bodily harm done.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the facts and the House of Lords’ decision in DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290. However, readers should be aware that the objective test for the mens rea of murder established by the House of Lords in this case was subsequently reversed by Parliament. Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 restored the subjective approach, providing that a court or jury shall not be bound to infer that a person intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence, but shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences as appear proper in the circumstances. The case therefore retains historical and doctrinal significance as an illustration of the objective approach and the legislative response to it, but the objective test it established is no longer good law. The current law on the mens rea of murder requires proof of a subjective intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, as further developed in cases such as R v Moloney [1985] AC 905, R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025, and R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82.
