Lewis-Ranwell (Respondent) v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd and others (Appellants)
By Oliver White, Underwriter
Estimate read time 4 minutes 46 seconds
This case concerns the doctrine of illegality in negligence proceedings. A fresh policy-based approach was applied in Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42; [2017] AC 467.
The Supreme Court confirmed that this new approach applies not just to unjust enrichment claims in Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43. A summary of the doctrine was provided by Lord Hoffmann in Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009 UKHL 33, paragraph 29, where he stated that “…it is that you cannot recover compensation for your loss which you have suffered in consequence of your own criminal act.”
The facts are that Mr Lewis-Ranwell was found not guilty by reason of insanity for the murder of three men. He then brought proceedings against G4S Health Services (UK), the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police, Limited, Devon Partnership NHS Trust, and Devon County Council.
G4S Health Services was a private company that provided forensic medical services to people in custody, outsourced from the Chief Constable. Devon Partnership NHS Foundation Trust assessed people with mental illness in the criminal justice system. Devon County Council was responsible for an emergency team of mental health practitioners who provided mental health assessments.
Mr Lewis-Ranwell had been previously detained on two occasions for violent crimes. During each detention he behaved in a way that indicated that he was very mentally unwell. He was seen by mental health workers but the need for assessments was discussed but not arranged before he was bailed.
The basis of the claim was that the defendants were negligent in failing to provide him with adequate care or a mental health assessment. But for the alleged negligence, he would have been admitted to hospital and would not have killed the men. He seeks to recover damages as a result.
The trial judge found that the case was not barred by the illegal conduct and could proceed. The defendants, excluding the Chief Constable, appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal. The defendants once again appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the claimant is barred by the doctrine of illegality from bringing the proceedings.
The Supreme Court emphasised that, whilst a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is a full defence that results in acquittal, the fact that Mr Lewis-Ranwell was not convicted of a criminal offence should not be a decisive consideration. The jury’s verdict established that the claimant did kill the three men, and doing so without lawful justification “breaches a fundamental moral rule in our society – you shall not kill.” It was in public interest that he would be made the subject of a hospital order and a restriction order. Therefore, the court concluded that the killing of the three men was unlawful conduct and would engage the defence.
Having determined that the illegality defence would be engaged by the present claim, the Court then applied it to the facts of the case. The Court concluded that the appeal should be allowed having had consideration of the current facts, in conjunction with the doctrine of illegality.
The Temple Perspective
This case is interesting as the Court held that the doctrine of illegality does not require the claimant to be found criminally guilty. Instead, the Court is concerned with whether the conduct itself was unlawful. While this will only apply to a very limited tranche of cases, it provides an important clarification for the doctrine, and where it will apply, as well as reinforcing the purpose of the doctrine.
If you would like to discuss any of the details raised in this article, please call Oliver on 01483 514870 or send an email to
Oliver White
Underwriter
Oliver White
Oliver is an Underwriter who joined Temple in 2022 as an Underwriting Support Assistant. He became a Trainee Underwriter in September 2023 and completed his training in August 2024. Oliver holds an LLB in Law from the University of Exeter, having graduated in 2020. His legal background equips him with a strong understanding of the legal issues relevant to cases referred to Temple, enabling him to make efficient and accurate underwriting decisions.
Oliver works across both the Clinical Negligence & Personal Injury and Commercial teams, reviewing referred cases and determining coverage. He also manages delegated authority schemes, acting as the primary point of contact for these firms and ensuring that Temple continues to meet their ATE insurance needs.
In 2024, Oliver took leadership of the Northern Ireland project, taking on full responsibility for its management and direction.
Read articles by Oliver White
