Hyam v. Director of Public Prosecutions

Mens rea, Motive or Intent.

Citation. 1 All E.R. 41 (H.L. 1974).

Brief Fact Summary: Defendant was convicted of murder for deliberately setting fire to a house which resulted in the death of two occupants. Defendant argues he lacked the requisite intent for murder.

Ratio: The fact that Defendant was not certain who, if anyone, was present in the house was irrelevant when he undertook actions that could cause grievous bodily harm.

Explanation: Defendant’s actions had to rise to a level where grievous bodily harm would endanger life. The Court found that to redefine the statute was the legislature’s responsibility and not the courts. However, based on the common law in place and statutory scheme, the court ruled that the Defendant’s conviction would stand

Facts: The Defendant set fire to a house by pouring about half a gallon of gasoline through a letter box of the house and lighting it on fire. Four people were asleep in the house. Two made it out, two young girls died in the fire. The jury was instructed that the intent to do grievous bodily harm was sufficient to convict for murder. The Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder. The Defendant appealed, arguing that he did not foresee the deaths of the individuals and the crime of murder required an intent to endanger an individual’s life, not just an intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Held: Malice aforethought is defined as an intent to cause the death of, or grievous bodily harm to, a person, whether such person is actually killed or not.

If for example, an individual set a bomb to go off at a certain time in a public street, he intends to injure someone. The fact that he was not certain that anyone would be around at the time the bomb went off is irrelevant, the fact is that he intended to cause some sort of injury which is sufficient.

In the case at bar, it was apparent to the court that setting fire to a dwelling during the early morning when individual were likely to be present was sufficient to demonstrate an intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Advertisements

Hypocritical judgement — Really?

Death Sentence

Lewis, 41, was convicted of arranging the deaths of her husband and stepson in October 2002 so she could collect a $250,000 (£159,365) insurance payout. The two men who carried out the murders – one of whom was her lover – received life sentences. Lewiss lawyers had argued her execution would be unconstitutional because she has a low IQ. Last night two of the three women on the nine-member court, justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, voted to stop the execution but the court made no other comment on its order.Prosecutors said Lewis deserved the death penalty because she planned the killings in cold blood. Robert McDonnell, the Virginia governor, had refused to stop the execution because, he said, no medical professional had concluded that she was mentally retarded. Lewiss lawyers said they had new evidence that her lover Matthew Shallenberger, who later committed suicide in prison, had manipulated her.On the decisions made by the supreme court and McDonnell, Lewiss lawyer, James E Rocap said that “a good and decent person is about to lose her life because of a system that is broken”.

Authorities in Iran have accused the US and western media of double standards over the case. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in state-run media that the west had run a “heavy propaganda” campaign against the case of an Iranian woman who had been sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery but failed to react with outrage over the scheduled execution of Lewis. ( US supreme court upholds Virginia womans planned execution | World news | guardian.co.uk.)

So the Insurance turned out to be the cause of death. Funny!

More and more classifications. Low IQ. Low Gene. Low esteem. Low patience. Low compassion. Low fidelity. What not.
Every criminal has twisted mind. But for death sentence ………
Right question is about possibility of reform of convict. Was there any such possibility? Was it completely ruled out?