Exploring the Judgment in The Decision in - Lewis-Ranwell v. G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd, Devon Partnership NHS Trust and Devon County Council (Court of Appeal 16 February 2024)
The Claimant (ALR), whilst in what must be described conservatively as "a delusional state", killed three innocent elderly men in the belief they were all undetected and unpunished paedophiles.
At his criminal trial he was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. The index case concerns a civil claim in negligence that was brought on his behalf for his own losses, plus an indemnity claim in respect of any future claims from his victims. The defendants sought to strike out these claims on the ground of illegality.
Background
It is a point worthy of note that ALR had a history of mental health problems, having previously been diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychosis.
On 8 February 2019 he was arrested on suspicion of burglary, and was seen by mental health staff from G4S and the trust. He became increasingly paranoid whilst at Barnstaple police station but was on first blush at least, unfathomably and eventually released back into the community at 02.49 on 9 February.
Later that morning he attacked a farmer with a large saw and was again detained by the police. He was unco-operative with all professionals who tried to engage with him and behaved in a very agitated manner.
However, the following morning, astonishingly it seems, he was granted bail and later that day perpetrated the three killings.
AT the criminal trial the jury’s verdict meant that the judge made a hospital order with restrictions under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act, 1983 and ALR was detained in the Broadmoor secure facility.
The civil claim makes numerous allegations of negligence against the defendants, as well as the police, and also seeks damages under the Human Rights Act.
The defendants attempted to have ALR’s negligence claims struck out, but failed before Mr. Justice Garnham in the High Court in May 2022. They therefore sought a review from the Court of Appeal. They argued that ALR should not be able to succeed in a claim of his own because that claim was founded upon his illegal acts.
Lord Justice Underhill, giving the leading judgment, observed that there was no binding authority upon the court on whether the illegality defence operated where the claimant was insane at the time of his acts.
That contrasts with the position where a claimant had been convicted of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. In such cases the claimant is unable to recover damages because they were partially responsible for their actions – see the NHS Resolution case of Henderson v. Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust (Supreme Court 2021).
Underhill LJ examined the consistency principle – in other words, the need for criminal and civil law to be consistent with each other.
He accepted arguments on behalf of ALR in this respect, to the effect that criminal law is concerned with personal responsibility for acts. The jury’s verdict was that ALR was not responsible for his own actions, and therefore there was no inconsistency in allowing him to recover damages for his losses.
The defendants had argued that it was inappropriate for someone to seek damages for being detained in hospital under a court order, but Lord Justice Underhill did not accept that proposition where, as here, the order had no punitive element.
He added that in his view, debarring the claimant from seeking damages did not reflect the values of our society. A killer may also be a victim if they were suffering from serious mental illness and were let down by those responsible for their care. Someone who was insane should not be prevented from obtaining compensation for the consequences of their unlawful act which they did not know was wrong and for which they therefore had no moral culpability. He dismissed an argument regarding the impact on NHS funding of allowing such claims to continue, stating that it “must be tiny”. That argument is a little occluded by the ethical considerations in the case but the answer "it must be tiny" seems to have something of a knee jerk quality about it. If it wasn't "tiny" would that make any difference?
Dame Victoria Sharp delivered a judgment agreeing with Underhill LJ. However, Lady Justice Andrews took the opposite view and considered that the defendants’ application should be allowed. Her starting point was that the killings were unlawful acts. LJ Andrews seems to have split the act / from the intention here and realistically this case revolves around that central point. The claim is brought under legal personality and there is lawful excuse that allows that personality to escape the implications of an unlawful act.
It is true that legal policy treats insanity as an excuse for homicide, but does not treat it as a justification. She noted that insanity was not a defence to a civil claim in battery, and therefore there would be a lack of coherence in the law if ALR was liable to pay compensation to the estates of his victims under civil law yet, at the same time, avoid the consequences of that liability by passing responsibility for his actions to another party on the basis that he would not have committed those intentional acts had it not been for the defendants’ negligence.
Failure to apply the illegality defence would, in her opinion, enable ALR to place the legal responsibility for deliberately taking the lives of three people at someone else’s door.
By a majority, therefore, the Court of Appeal allowed ALR’s claim to continue.
This was a truly shocking case on the facts. It raises ethical as well as legal issues and the Court of Appeal’s decision is likely to divide opinion sharply. However, there is currently no ruling on this precise situation from the highest court in the land, and therefore it is possible that the Supreme Court will decide to hear the case.
Graham Balmforth is a self employed Medical Solicitor and accepts instructions on behalf of different specialist medical Solicitors firms as a Consultant Solicitor Advocate. He can be contacted on.