The K-Zone: Hyam v DPP (1974)

This case ([1974] 2 WLR 607) became notorious for its treatment of the issue of Intention in a murder charge. Hyam put a rag soaked in fuel through a woman's letter box and lit it. In the resulting fire two children were killed. Hyam was charged with murder. In defence she claimed that she only intended to frighten the woman, not to kill anyone. The trial judge directed the jury that if Hyam forsaw that death or very serious injury was a probable consequence of her action, it was proper to assert that Hyam `intended' the action, and could therefore be guilty of murder. The jury therefore brought in a verdict of guilty of murder. Both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords supported this decision.

However, although the Lords did uphold the conviction, there was a range of different views on how probable the fatal consequences had to be, for an `intention' to be accepted. All the Lords held intention was satisfied if the accused `desired or had a purpose' to bring about a particular act. Lord Hailsham said that intention could be assumed when the accused intended the means used to carry out an action -- even when that means was not a direct cause of the fatality -- and the means had the `inseparable consequence' of fatality. For example, if I blow up an aeroplane to claim on insurance, and people are killed, then it can be claimed that I intended their deaths because I intended the action I did carry out, and the deaths were the inseparable consequence of that action. Hailsham also used the expression ``morally certain consequences'' of the accused actions. Viscount Dilhorne stated that intention could be assumed when the consequences of an action were ``highly probable'', whereas Lord Diplock accepted that they had only to be ``likely''. Lords Cross, Kilbrandon, and Hailsham did not agree with these latter arguments.

The final decision in Hyam attracted much controversy, particularly because in asserting that `intention' could be grounded in the forsight of probable harm, the boundary between intention and Recklessness was blurred. This problem has arisen in a number of similar cases until the present day. In RVMoloney1985 the House of Lords modified the ruling in Hyam; in that case it was held that act's having obvious harmful consequences is evidence for intention, it is not conclusive by itself. The view in Moloney was also preferred in RVHancockAndShankland1986, suggesting that the finding in Hyam is now out of favour.

CaseLaw