The claimant, who had a history of mental health problems, was arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm but released on police bail after being seen by medical professionals. Shortly thereafter, while in a delusional state, the claimant attacked and killed three men in their homes, resulting in him being charged with murder. At trial he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, pursuant to section 2 of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883, on the basis that although he had known the nature and quality of his acts he had not known that what he was doing was wrong. Acting in accordance with section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, the court ordered that he be detained in hospital pursuant to a hospital order with restrictions under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The claimant brought a claim in negligence against two healthcare providers, the police authority and the local authority seeking damages for personal injury, loss of liberty, loss of reputation and an indemnity in respect of any claim brought against him as a consequence of his violence towards others in the days preceding the killings. An application by the healthcare providers and the local authority to strike out the claim on the ground of illegality was refused by the judge and, on appeal, by the Court of Appeal.
On further appeal by the healthcare providers and the local authority—
Held, appeal allowed. (1) The defence of illegality prevented, as a matter of public policy, the recovery of compensation for the consequences of a claimant having carried out some unlawful or otherwise morally wrong act of sufficient severity as to engage the public interest and where allowing the claim would produce inconsistency and disharmony in the law and so cause damage to the integrity of the legal system. No distinction was to be drawn for the purposes of the defence of illegality between a person charged with murder but convicted of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, where it was accepted that the defence could apply, and a person found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. The latter, albeit spared criminal responsibility for his conduct, had nevertheless carried out an unlawful killing which could not be justified nor excused. Accordingly, the claimant’s killing of the three men was unlawful conduct for the purpose of engaging the illegality defence (paras 112–114, 121–123, 131–132, 134).
(2) If a civil court were to allow the claimant to recover compensation for his lawful detention ordered by a criminal court under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 it would be wholly inconsistent with that detention, inconsistent with his liability to the estates of his victims and to their dependants in tort (where insanity was not a defence), and inconsistent with the inability of the victims’ estates themselves to claim against the defendants, who were unlikely to have owed the victims a duty of care to keep them safe. Such inconsistencies would necessarily be detrimental to the legal system and its coherence and outweighed any public policies which might be rendered ineffective or less effective by denial of the claim. Denial of the claim in such circumstances was a proportionate response to the illegality. Accordingly, notwithstanding that the claimant bore no criminal responsibility for his acts, public policy demanded that his claims in negligence be barred by the illegality defence (paras 141–142, 145–149, 154, 159, 163, 170).
Angus Moon KC and Gurion Taussig (instructed by G4S Legal Department (UK & I)) for the first defendant.
Judith Ayling KC, Alex Ruck Keene KC (Hon) and James Goudkamp (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP, Bristol) for the third defendant.
Andrew Warnock KC and Jack Harding (instructed by DWF Law LLP, Bristol) for the fourth defendant.
Selena Plowden KC, Christopher Johnson and Rachel Woodward (instructed by Clarke Willmott LLP, Taunton) for the claimant.