What Is The Forfeiture Rule?
The Forfeiture Act 1982 is an interesting piece of law which prevents individuals that have unlawfully killed another person from benefitting as a consequent of the killing.
This law essentially prevents the criminal from being able to inherit from the person that they have killed, whether that be under the terms of a Will, under the intestacy rules, by survivorship (in the case of jointly owned property) or under the terms of a life insurance policy.
The Forfeiture Rule also prevents anybody who as unlawfully aided, abetted, counselled or procured the death from benefitting. Further, it can even apply to cases of an assisted suicide, even if the person who assisted the suicide was never prosecuted
The premise of the rule is that it would be unequitable and against public policy to allow people to benefit from killing another.
Are There Any Exceptions To The Rule?
Under section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1982, the rule can be modified at the discretion of the Court, if the Court is satisfied that it would be just to do so given the circumstances. However, there are timeframes in which the rule must be modified.
When deciding if the Forfeiture Rule should be modified, the Court will consider matters such as the conduct of the offender and the deceased, their relationship, the intentions of the deceased, the size of the estate and the degree of moral culpability.
Ninian v Findlay and others (2019)
The relevantly recent case of Ninian v Findlay and others dealt with the issue of assisted suicide and looked at whether the forfeiture rule should apply. Mr Ninian was sadly diagnosed with a progressive incurable disease.
Following the diagnosis, he contacted the Dignitas Clinic in Switzerland which offers assisted suicide conducted by medical professionals. Assisted suicide by medical professionals is legal in Switzerland, but not in the United Kingdom.
Mr Ninian’s wife did not agree with Mr Ninian’s wish to commit suicide and she made efforts to dissuade him. When Mrs Ninian was unable to convince her husband otherwise, she reluctantly agreed to assist Mr Ninian with his arrangements to visit the Dignitas Clinic. Mr Ninian subsequently died at the Dignitas Clinic in 2017.
In this case, Mr Ninian had taken independent legal advice before proceeding to visit the Dignitas Clinic. He had provided a statement detailing his reasons for committing suicide and his wife’s involvement in the process. He also had a psychiatrist carry out a capacity assessment to evidence his capacity to make the decision. The Court considered this evidence and the evidence provided by Mrs Ninian in relation to the steps that she took steps to dissuade her husband. The Court considered that Mrs Ninian’s reluctant agreement to assist her husband was wholly motivated by compassion, and as such, the Court decided to grant full relief from the Forfeiture Rule enabling Mrs Ninian to inherit Mr Ninian’s estate.
Amos v Mancini (2020)
Amos v Mancini is another case where the Court decided to modify the effect of the Forfeiture Rule. Mrs Amos was an elderly woman who was convicted of causing her husband’s death by careless driving. Mrs Amos was due to inherit Mr Amos’ estate under the terms of his Will and was also due to inherit their jointly owned property which would pass by Survivorship.
The Judge in this case decided that the Forfeiture Rule would typically apply to this type of killing as, following the earlier case of Dunbar v Plant 1998, the Forfeiture Rule will generally apply to cases of manslaughter. However, the Judge considered that Mrs Amos’ lapse of concentration, though significant, had only been for a few moments and she had not intentionally killed Mr Amos. On the facts, the Judge concluded that the effect of the rule would be significantly disproportionate to Mrs Amos’ culpability and therefore justice required him to modify the effect of the Forfeiture Rule.
