The illegality defence – the effects of criminal convictions
Can someone who is convicted of a crime he would not have committed but for injury caused by the negligence of another party claim damages for the consequences of that conviction? If he would have suffered loss any way as a result of injuries caused by the negligence even if he had not been convicted, can he recover for those losses?
These issues were considered in a judgment handed down by the House of Lords yesterday. A victim of the Ladbroke Grove rail crash in 1999 developed post traumatic stress disorder. He went on to kill someone in 2001, and was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. It was accepted that he would not have committed the offence but for the psychological injuries caused by the accident. He was sentenced to detention in a secure hospital under the Mental Health Act. He sought to claim for the loss arising out of his incarceration, including his loss of earnings, and some other elements, including damage caused by his feelings of guilt and remorse. The defendant admitted negligence in causing the crash, but denied he was entitled to recover for these heads of damage.
The House of Lords agreed with the defendant. Their Lordships held:
1. the claims were precluded for public policy reasons. A claimant cannot claim for the consequences of a criminal sentence being imposed. To allow him to be compensated in tort for such losses, such as his loss of earnings, would be inconsistent with the criminal law holding him personally responsible for his criminal act;
2. in addition, there is a broader rule of public policy that a claimant cannot claim compensation for loss caused by his own criminal conduct (although this broader rules was expressed in a number of different ways by their Lordships);
3. the claimant could not claim for any loss of earnings he would have suffered any way, whether or not he had been convicted of manslaughter. Again, for public policy reasons, the court would view the subsequent conviction as a supervening cause of loss.
The issue of the effect of a claimant’s illegal conduct on his claims has caused the courts some difficulty in the last few years. At the moment, a decision is expected from the House of Lords on whether or not a company can claim against its auditors for failure to detect and report that company’s own fraud (for our Law Now on the Court of Appeal decision in that case, please click here.
In the present case the Court of Appeal had decided that there were no public policy reasons why the claimant could not bring his claim. The decision was widely reported and caused some concern. The House of Lords, in reversing the Court of Appeal decision, have restored what intuitively seems to be the correct position: a criminal should not be able to recover in tort for the consequences of his own criminal act.
This development will be welcomed by, amongst others, liability insurers since it imposes limits on the losses for which a victim who subsequently commits a criminal offence can claim.
Further reading: Gray v Thames Trains & Others [2009] UKHL 33
Law Now on Court of Appeal decision in Gray v Thames Trains and Others.
