Legal Case Summary
Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55
Murder – Mens Rea – Intention – Foresight
Facts of Hyamm v DPP
The defendant Hyam had been in a relationship with a man before the relationship ended. Hyam then had become jealous of her ex-boyfriend’s new fiancée Ms Booth. She poured petrol through Booth’s letter box and then ignited it using a rolled up newspaper. Hyam did not warn anyone of the fire but simply drove home. The resulting fire killed two young children. Hyam was tried for murder. At trial she claimed that she had only intended to frighten Booth and had not intended to kill anyone as the mens rea of murder demanded. Hyam was convicted and appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal to the House of Lords.
Issues in Hyamm v DPP
Did Hyam have the requisite intention to commit murder? Did the mens rea of intention require an intention to kill or only a foresight of a serious risk of death or serious bodily harm being caused?
Decision / Outcome of Hyamm v DPP
The appeal was refused. A person had the requisite mens rea for murder if they knowingly committed an act which was aimed at someone and which was committed with the intention of causing death or serious injury. Lord Hailsham also held that intention could also exist where the defendant ‘knew there was a serious risk that death or serious bodily harm will ensure from his acts and he commits those acts deliberately and without lawful excuse with the intention to expose a potential victim to that risk as the result of those acts. It does not matter in such circumstances whether the defendant desires those consequences or not.’ Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 at 79.
Updated 19 March 2026
This article accurately summarises the facts, issues, and decision in Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55. However, readers should be aware that the legal significance of the case has been substantially qualified by subsequent House of Lords authority.
The broad formulation of mens rea for murder endorsed in Hyam — particularly the proposition that foresight of a serious risk of death or grievous bodily harm could itself constitute the necessary intention — was later reconsidered and narrowed. In R v Moloney [1985] AC 905, the House of Lords held that foresight of consequences is not intention but is merely evidence from which intention may be inferred. This was further refined in R v Hancock and Shankland [1986] AC 455 and then in R v Nedrick [1986] 1 WLR 1025 (Court of Appeal), which introduced the ‘virtual certainty’ test as a direction to juries. That test was confirmed by the House of Lords in R v Woollin [1999] 1 AC 82, which remains the leading authority on oblique intention in murder. Under Woollin, a jury is entitled (but not bound) to find the necessary intention where death or serious bodily harm was a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s act and the defendant appreciated that to be so.
The mens rea formulation set out in Hyam as summarised in this article therefore no longer represents the current law on intention in murder. Hyam retains historical and academic importance as a stage in the development of this area of law, but students should treat it as such rather than as a statement of the present legal position.
