Chadwick v Collinson & Ors

The Forfeiture Rule applies to every case of unlawful killing, including manslaughter arising from diminished responsibility. Where the rule applies, relief is governed by the Forfeiture Act 1982, rather than by modifying the common-law rule directly. The first and paramount consideration is the offender’s culpability. The court must then consider all material circumstances in the round, including the conduct of the offender and deceased, the nature and gravity of the offence, the parties’ relationship, the deceased’s intentions, the estate and property concerned, the offender’s financial position, and the claims of those who would otherwise benefit. The statutory discretion is exceptional and requires modification only where justice requires it.

The claimant unlawfully killed his partner and their six-year-old son. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility and was detained under hospital and restriction orders. The claimant and the deceased had owned their home as joint tenants, and the deceased’s will left her estate to the claimant.

The claimant sought a declaration that the Forfeiture Rule did not apply, or alternatively an order under section 2(2) of the Forfeiture Act 1982 modifying its effect. The issues were whether the rule applied to manslaughter committed by a person suffering from diminished responsibility and, if so, whether justice required modification of its effect.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Forfeiture Rule applied to the claimant’s unlawful killings, and the justice of the case did not require modification of its effect.
2. The court followed the majority reasoning in Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412, as subsequently treated in Dalton v Latham [2003] EWHC 796 (Ch) and Re Land Deceased [2007] 1 WLR 1009. The rule applies to all cases of unlawful killing, including manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Any injustice is addressed through the statutory discretion.
3. Under section 2(2) of the Forfeiture Act 1982, the first and paramount consideration is whether the offender’s culpability justifies applying the rule. The court must then consider all material circumstances in the round. The factors identified in Dunbar v Plant are helpful but non-exhaustive.
4. The diminished-responsibility evidence reduced the claimant’s culpability but did not eliminate it or reduce it to a level at which forfeiture would be contrary to the public interest. The claimant had acted pursuant to a decision to kill, retained significant control over his actions, understood the nature and quality of his conduct, and knew it was wrong.
5. The gravity and ferocity of the attacks weighed against relief. There was no conduct by the deceased capable of explaining the killings. The deceased’s estate was substantially derived from property and funds originating with her family. The claimant’s financial position and the fact that relatives, rather than intended beneficiaries, would inherit weighed in the opposite direction, but did not outweigh the other considerations.
6. Because forfeiture applied, the joint tenancy was severed and the claimant could retain only his own half share in the property; he was also precluded from taking under the deceased’s will.