Re W (2020) UKUT 155 (AAC): Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 21:03, 3 November 2024

Non-application of forfeiture rule The forfeiture rule ("the rule of public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing") can be modified under the Forfeiture Act 1982 in the interests of justice but not following a conviction for murder. The Secretary of State initially argued that W had been convicted of murder. The Crown Court had found that, in relation to his wife's killing, W was unfit to plead but had done the act. The Upper Tribunal equated this with a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, which for forfeiture rule purposes amounts to an acquittal, so there was no conviction and the forfeiture rule did not apply.

Note

Published on BAILII on 10/6/20.

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

Miscellaneous cases🔍

Date: 9/5/20🔍

Court: Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)🔍

Judge(s):

Mitchell🔍

Parties:

W🔍
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions🔍

Citation number(s):

[2020] UKUT 155 (AAC)^B

What links here:

No pages link to this page

Published: 25/6/20 22:12

Cached: 2025-04-08 23:37:31

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Case
-|Date=2020/05/09
+|Date=2020-05-09
 |NCN=[2020] UKUT 155 (AAC)
 |Court=Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 |Parties=W, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
 |Sentence=Non-application of forfeiture rule
-|Summary=The forfeiture rule ("the rule of public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing") can be modified in the interests of justice but not following a conviction for murder. The Secretary of State initially argued that W had been convicted of murder. The Crown Court had found that, in relation to his wife's killing, W was unfit to plead but had done the act. The Upper Tribunal equated this with a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, which for forfeiture rule purposes amounts to an acquittal, so there was no conviction and the forfeiture rule did not apply.
+|Summary=The forfeiture rule ("the rule of public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing") can be modified under the [[Forfeiture Act 1982]] in the interests of justice but not following a conviction for murder. The Secretary of State initially argued that W had been convicted of murder. The Crown Court had found that, in relation to his wife's killing, W was unfit to plead but had done the act. The Upper Tribunal equated this with a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, which for forfeiture rule purposes amounts to an acquittal, so there was no conviction and the forfeiture rule did not apply.
 |Detail===Note==
 Published on BAILII on 10/6/20.
 |Subject=Miscellaneous cases
 |News=Yes
-|RSS pubdate=2020/06/25 09:42:36 PM
+|RSS pubdate=2020-06-25 09:42:36 PM
 }}