Clunis v Camden and Islington HA [1997] EWCA Civ 2918

A man convicted of manslaughter sued a health authority for negligently failing to treat his mental illness, which he claimed caused the killing. The court struck out the claim, applying the public policy doctrine ('ex turpi causa') that a claimant cannot recover for loss resulting from their own criminal act.

Facts

The plaintiff, Mr Andre Clunis, had a history of mental disorder, specifically schizophrenia, which included incidents of violence. After being detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, he was discharged into the community under the care of the defendant health authority. The authority had a statutory duty under section 117 of the Act to provide after-care services. Mr Clunis was not seen by a social worker or psychiatrist as planned following his discharge. Three months later, he fatally stabbed a stranger, Mr Jonathan Zito, at a London underground station. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was ordered by the criminal court to be detained in a secure hospital. Mr Clunis then brought a civil action against the health authority, claiming damages for negligence and breach of duty, arguing that their failure to provide adequate after-care caused the deterioration in his mental state which led to the killing and his subsequent loss of liberty.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the public policy principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (an action cannot be founded on a base cause). Specifically, the court considered:

1. Whether a plaintiff could found a claim for damages on his own criminal and immoral act.
2. Whether the fact that the plaintiff’s criminal responsibility was diminished by his mental illness prevented the application of the ex turpi causa principle.
3. Whether the defendant health authority’s duty of care to the plaintiff could override the public policy consideration.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the first instance decision to strike out the plaintiff’s claim, dismissing his appeal. Lord Justice Beldam, giving the leading judgment, held that the claim was inextricably linked to the plaintiff’s own criminal act and was therefore barred by public policy.

Reasoning of the Court

The court’s reasoning was grounded in the principle that the law should not lend its support to a plaintiff who has committed a serious criminal offence. Lord Justice Beldam stated:

The court ought not to allow itself to be made an instrument to enforce obligations alleged to arise out of the plaintiff’s own criminal act and we would agree that this rule is not based on moral indignation but on public policy.

The court rejected the argument that the plea of diminished responsibility made a material difference. It was held that, while it reduced the conviction from murder to manslaughter, it did not negate the fact that the plaintiff was responsible for a serious crime.

In the present case the plaintiff’s claim is for damages for the consequences of his own criminal act. … The fact that the plaintiff pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility does not, in my view, affect the quality of the act as a criminal act. The court has to have regard to the claim as pleaded.

The court distinguished the situation from cases where damages were awarded for an injury which then *caused* a person to commit a crime. Here, the damages claimed (for loss of liberty and the like) were not for the consequences of the defendant’s negligence itself, but for the consequences of the sentence imposed by law for the plaintiff’s criminal act. It was held that the defendant’s duty of care, even if aimed at preventing the plaintiff from causing harm, could not be used to found a claim for compensation for the consequences of that harm being realised.

Implications

The decision in Clunis is a leading authority on the defence of illegality (ex turpi causa) in the tort of negligence. It confirms that a claimant cannot recover damages for loss and damage which are the direct result of a sentence imposed for a criminal act they have committed. The case establishes that this public policy rule applies even where the claimant’s criminal act was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence and where the claimant’s legal responsibility for the crime was diminished by mental illness. This has significant implications for the liability of mental health authorities, limiting their exposure to claims from patients who commit crimes while under their care a duty of care to prevent such an event does not create a right to be compensated for the consequences of committing it.

Verdict: The plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.

Source: Clunis v Camden and Islington HA [1997] EWCA Civ 2918