Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1213 (QB) (20 May 2022)

Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1213 (QB) (20 May 2022)

The claim in negligence is not barred by the doctrine of illegality (ex turpi causa) where the claimant was acquitted of murder by reason of insanity, as he did not know his acts were wrong at the time. The public policy underlying the illegality defence does not extend to bar claims by those found not guilty by reason of insanity, and to do so would be an unwarranted extension of the doctrine, inconsistent with established legal principles and the distinction between insanity and diminished responsibility.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1213 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Alexander Lewis-Ranwell; First Defendant: G4S Health Services (UK) Limited; Second Defendant: Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police; Third Defendant: Devon Partnership NHS Trust; Fourth Defendant: Devon County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence and Human Rights Claim / Application to Strike Out Negligence Claims at Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Application to strike out negligence claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Illegality Defence (ex Turpi Causa), Insanity in Criminal Law, Public Policy, Human Rights Act 1998, Mental Health Act 1983
Tort Law Mental Health Law Human Rights Law Negligence Illegality Defence (ex Turpi Causa) Insanity in Criminal Law Public Policy Human Rights Act 1998 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander Lewis-Ranwell

Claimant

G4S Health Services (UK) Limited

First Defendant

Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police

Second Defendant

Devon Partnership NHS Trust

Third Defendant

Devon County Council

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence and Human Rights Claim / Application to Strike Out Negligence Claims at Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claim in negligence is barred by the doctrine of illegality (ex turpi causa) where the claimant was acquitted of murder by reason of insanity
  2. 2 Whether public policy precludes a civil claim for damages arising from acts committed while insane
  3. 3 Whether the distinction between diminished responsibility and insanity is material for the application of the illegality defence

Ratio Decidendi

The claim in negligence is not barred by the doctrine of illegality (ex turpi causa) where the claimant was acquitted of murder by reason of insanity, as he did not know his acts were wrong at the time. The public policy underlying the illegality defence does not extend to bar claims by those found not guilty by reason of insanity, and to do so would be an unwarranted extension of the doctrine, inconsistent with established legal principles and the distinction between insanity and diminished responsibility.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out negligence claims dismissed

Orders

  • Negligence claims against the First, Third, and Fourth Defendants may proceed to trial
  • No order as to costs at this stage