Mental health, clinical negligence and the illegality defence

3 November 2020 by

        

In Ecila Henderson v. Dorset Healthcare University NHS Trust Foundation [2020] UKSC 43 the Supreme Court has revisited the defence of illegality (“ex turpi causa”) in the context of a claim for clinical negligence.

The claimant — a mental health patient — had committed a criminal offence as a result of the defendant health authority’s admitted negligence. Can a claimant, who would not have committed an offence but for the Defendant’s negligence, recover losses arising from their own criminality? Can they seek compensation for the pain, suffering and loss of earnings caused by a custodial sentence? Can they recover general damages for feelings of guilt and remorse? The Supreme Court answered these questions with a resounding “no”.

The Facts

Ms Henderson suffered from paranoid schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Whilst under the care of the Defendant’s community mental health team she stabbed her mother to death. She did so whilst experiencing a serious psychotic episode. She was convicted of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility.

In sentencing her, the judge said that: “… there is no suggestion in your case that you should be seen as bearing a significant degree of responsibility for what you did”. The judge sentenced Ms Henderson to a hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Ms Henderson subsequently brought a civil claim against the Defendant Trust. The Trust admitted liability for its negligent failure to return her to hospital when her psychiatric condition deteriorated and accepted that, if it had done this, the tragic killing of Ms Henderson’s mother would not have taken place.

However, the Trust argued that Ms Henderson’s claim was barred for illegality (“ex turpi causa”), because the damages she claimed resulted from: (i) the sentence imposed on her by the criminal court; and/or (ii) her own criminal act of manslaughter.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The central legal issue was whether the Court was bound by the House of Lords’ decision in Gray v. Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33. A claim on very similar facts was dismissed in that case. Alternatively, the Court could depart from Gray in the light of the more recent decision of the Supreme Court in Patel v. Mirza [2016] UKSC 42. In that case the majority adopted a flexible policy based approach to the illegality defence which took into account competing public policy and proportionality factors.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the ex turpi defence was justified by two public policy considerations:

First, the need to ensure consistency between the criminal law and the law of tort. The integrity of the justice system depended on its consistency. It would inconsistent for the law, on the one hand, to imprison a person for the consequences of their criminality but, on the other, to compensate them for it. Or to put it another way the law should not “condone when facing right what it condemns when facing left”.

Second, the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. It was offensive to public notions of the fair distribution of resources that a claimant should be compensated for the consequences their own criminal conduct. This would risk bringing the law into disrepute.

The Court held that conviction of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility meant that responsibility for the criminal act was diminished but not that it was removed. To allow recovery in civil proceeding would lead to inconsistency. It would attribute responsibility for the criminal act not, as determined by the criminal law, to the criminal but to the tortious defendant. The criminal under the criminal law would become the victim under the civil law. Moreover, to allow a civil judge to revisit the question of whether a convicted person bore personal responsibility for their crimes would create a clear risk of inconsistent decisions in the criminal and civil courts.

Applying the flexible policy based approach endorsed in Patel did not lead to a different conclusion. There was a strong public interest in the condemnation and punishment of unlawful killing.  Moreover the Court stated that:

NHS funding is an issue of significant public interest and importance and, if recovery is permitted, funds will be taken from the NHS budget to compensate the appellant for the consequences of her criminal conviction for unlawful killing.

The claimant relied upon countervailing policy considerations.  The policy of encouraging NHS bodies to care competently for the most vulnerable was one such policy. The policy of ensuring that public bodies paid compensation to those they had injured was another. The Court recognised that there was some force in these considerations. But they did not begin to outweigh those that supported the denial of the claim:

concern for the integrity of the legal system trumps the concern that the defendant be responsible.

Accordingly, Gray v. Thames Trains Ltd remained good law and was consistent with the policy driven approach in Patel v. Mirza.

Comment

This case provides helpful clarity for clinical negligence practitioners who bring or defend allegations of sub-standard mental health care. Following Henderson the general rule is that Claimants can recover for the personal consequences of self-harm as a result of negligent mental health care but not for the personal consequences of causing criminal harm to others.

This general prohibition applies to damages resulting from the imposition of a criminal sentence, such as general damages for the detention and loss of earnings during it. It also applies to damages for feelings of guilt and remorse  consequent upon a criminal act. Nor can claimants seek indemnities from defendants against claims brought by the victim or the victim’s dependents.

Interestingly the Court left open the possibility there may be some very exceptional cases where the defence of illegality would not apply. This may be where the criminal act committed as a result of the defendant’s negligence did not constitute ‘turpitude’. Examples might include trivial offences or strict liability cases where the claimant is not privy to the facts making his act unlawful (see [55-56] and [112]). The potential existence of this exceptional category follows from the application of the flexible policy based approach endorsed in Patel. In practice, the author would expect this exceptional category to apply very rarely indeed. However, it would not be a surprise if the limits of the illegality defence were tested in respect of a much less serious offence in the future.

Robert Kellar QC is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: