Misa Zgonec-Rozej & Ors v Dr Stephen Pereira & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2501 (KB)
Alexander Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd & Ors
20 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 138
Court of Appeal
A man with schizophrenia killed people. He was found not legally responsible because he was insane. He sued those who he said failed to help him. The court mostly said he could sue because he wasn't responsible for his crimes, but one judge disagreed, saying that his actions were still wrong.
Key Facts
- •Alexander Lewis-Ranwell (Claimant/Respondent), aged 32, was diagnosed with schizophrenia and killed three elderly men during a psychotic episode.
- •He was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
- •Prior to the killings, he was arrested twice and released on bail despite exhibiting violent and erratic behavior.
- •Mental health professionals from G4S, Devon Partnership NHS Trust, and Devon County Council saw or spoke to him during his detentions but a full assessment did not take place.
- •Lewis-Ranwell sued the three organizations for negligence and under the Human Rights Act 1998.
- •The defendants argued the illegality defence, claiming the court shouldn't entertain a claim based on his unlawful homicides.
- •The High Court dismissed the applications, stating that the 'not guilty by reason of insanity' verdict meant his conduct lacked 'turpitude' (knowing wrongfulness).
Legal Principles
Illegality defence (ex turpi causa principle): A court will not entertain a claim founded on a claimant's own unlawful act.
Various case laws discussed throughout the judgement, notably Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42
Liability of the mentally ill in tort: Insanity is generally not a defence to a claim in tort; liability exists if the defendant's mind directed their actions (even without knowledge of wrongdoing).
Morriss v Marsden [1952] 1 All ER 925, Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673
M'Naghten Rules: To establish insanity as a defence, it must be proven the accused, at the time of the act, lacked the reason to know the nature and quality of their act or that it was wrong.
M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200
Illegality defence and mental illness: The illegality defence may not apply if the claimant was unaware of the unlawfulness due to insanity.
Adamson v Jarvis (1827) 4 Bing 66, Burrows v Rhodes [1899] 1 QB 816, various US and Commonwealth cases, Traylor v Kent & Medway NHS Social Care Partnership Trust [2022] EWHC 260
Diminished responsibility vs. insanity: Diminished responsibility implies impaired but not absent criminal responsibility; insanity implies a lack of criminal responsibility.
Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority [1998] QB 978, Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33, Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Trust [2020] UKSC 43
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal majority held that the illegality defence did not apply because Lewis-Ranwell lacked criminal responsibility due to insanity. The majority considered that denying compensation would be unjust given his lack of moral culpability.
One judge (Lady Justice Andrews) allowed the appeal.
Andrews LJ disagreed, arguing that the deliberate and tortious nature of Lewis-Ranwell's actions, regardless of his mental state, should bar his claim. She emphasized the inherent inconsistency of holding him liable to victims while allowing him to shift responsibility.