— The claimant killed three men, was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, then sought damages from G4S, the police, the NHS trust and the county council. The defendants argued that his claim should be struck out on the grounds of illegality, on the basis of: (a) the "consistency principle" (inconsistency with the criminal law and civil law); (b) the "public confidence principle"; and (c) other public policy considerations (the impact on NHS funding, and deterring unlawful killing). The Court of Appeal (2-1) decided that there was "a coherent and bright line distinction for the purposes of the ex turpi causa doctrine, between those who are criminally responsible for their acts whether fully or partially, and those who are not responsible for their acts because they do not know what they are doing is morally and legally wrong". The High Court's decision was therefore upheld and the claim could continue. [Overturned by the Supreme Court.]
Full details available at: https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Lewis-Ranwell_v_G4S_Health_Services_(UK)_Ltd_(2024)_EWCA_Civ_138?id=210126-2115