Reinforcing the defence of illegality – an update for psychiatric healthcare providers

Judgment was handed down yesterday by the Supreme Court in the above appeal by the Defendants (G4S Health Services (UK) Limited; Devon Partnership NHS Trust and Devon County Council). 

The Claimant Lewis-Ranwell had been charged with the murder of 3 individuals, but was found at the criminal trial not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. He brought civil proceedings against the Defendants to claim damages for the consequences of the killings; he has been detained at Broadmoor Hospital and subject to a hospital order and a restriction order.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Claimant was barred from bringing civil proceedings in negligence by the doctrine of illegality, where he had been found not guilty at trial by reason of insanity. 

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeals by the Defendants, finding that the Claimant’s actions of killing three men engaged the illegality defence and crossed the threshold of both seriousness and public interest: 

1. The prohibition of murder is the fundamental rule and applies with equal force to an individual found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity;
2. It is in the public interest to maintain the integrity of the legal system which would be better served by allowing the appeal; to allow the civil claim to proceed would give rise to a number of inconsistencies and there are alternative procedures such as inquests and public inquiries which can examine what has gone wrong in cases such as this;
3. The killing of 3 individuals is of the utmost seriousness, and denying the claim is a proportionate response to the illegality. 

The judgment also reiterates the scope of duty of care, and that the families of victims who have been unlawfully killed are unlikely to succeed in a negligence claim brought against defendants (often healthcare or police defendants), as the defendants do not owe victims a duty of care to protect them from harm – as per paragraph 147 of the judgment, with reference to Palmer [2000] and Robinson [2018].  

This is a welcome judgment for defendants responsible for the provision of psychiatric services, that the defence of illegality will bar claimants from seeking damages for the consequences of their wrongful acts, even where they have been found not guilty by reason of insanity (and in circumstances where negligence would otherwise have been established on the facts).