Gray v Thames Trains [2009] UKHL 33 (17 June 2009)

The claimant suffered PTSD from a rail crash caused by the defendant's negligence. He later committed manslaughter. The House of Lords held he could not claim damages for losses resulting from his own criminal act and subsequent detention, applying the ex turpi causa principle.

Facts

The claimant, Mr Gray, was a passenger on a train involved in the Ladbroke Grove rail disaster, for which the defendant, Thames Trains, admitted liability in negligence. Mr Gray suffered severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of the crash. Subsequently, he was involved in a road-rage incident where he stabbed and killed a man. At his criminal trial, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, with his PTSD being the recognised mental abnormality. He was sentenced to be detained in a hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983. Mr Gray then brought a civil claim against Thames Trains, seeking damages for, amongst other things, his loss of earnings following his detention, general damages for his conviction and detention, and feelings of guilt and remorse.

Issues

The principal legal issue before the House of Lords was whether the public policy doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio (an action does not arise from a disgraceful cause) operated to prevent the claimant from recovering damages for losses which were a consequence of his own criminal act (manslaughter), even though that act was itself caused by a psychiatric injury for which the defendant was liable.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the claimant was not entitled to recover damages for losses flowing from his criminal act. Lord Hoffmann delivered the leading speech, clarifying the scope of the ex turpi causa rule.

The Ex Turpi Causa Principle

Lord Hoffmann analysed the maxim not as a single, rigid principle but as a reflection of public policy. He articulated two formulations of the rule: a narrow version and a wider version.

Application of the Narrow Rule

The narrow rule states that a claimant cannot recover for damage which is the consequence of a sentence imposed by a court for a criminal act. Lord Hoffmann found this rule sufficient to dispose of the claim for loss of earnings during the period of the claimant’s detention. He reasoned that the direct cause of this loss was the criminal sentence, not the defendant’s original tort. To award damages would create an inconsistency in the law.

The sentence of the court was the immediate cause of his loss of earnings. Thefts and other acquisitive crimes are often the foreseeable consequence of personal injuries which deprive people of the ability to earn an honest living. But the law is that the criminal is responsible for his own crime. He is not allowed to attribute it to his poverty or misfortune.

He further elaborated on the legal inconsistency that compensation would create:

So I would state the principle as being that you cannot recover for damage which flows from loss of liberty or a fine. It is the law which as a matter of penal policy has caused the damage and it would be inconsistent for the law to require you to be compensated for that damage.

Application of the Wide Rule

Lord Hoffmann also invoked a wider version of the rule to address other heads of damage, such as general damages for feelings of guilt and the damage to his reputation. The wide rule states that a claimant cannot recover for loss suffered in consequence of their own criminal act.

The wider principle… is that you cannot recover compensation for loss which you have suffered in consequence of your own criminal act… It is the criminality of the act which is the effective cause of the damage even if the act is a foreseeable consequence of the tortious conduct of the defendant.

This formulation prevents recovery for losses that are inextricably linked to the criminal act itself, not just the subsequent legal penalty. The court held that the claimant’s own criminal responsibility broke the chain of causation for the purposes of a civil claim for these losses.

Implications

The decision in Gray v Thames Trains provides an authoritative clarification of the ex turpi causa doctrine in the law of tort. It establishes a firm rule that the civil law will not award compensation for the adverse consequences of a claimant’s own serious criminal conduct, such as loss of liberty or earnings post-conviction. The case reinforces the legal policy of personal responsibility for criminal acts and ensures consistency between the criminal and civil law, preventing a situation where one branch of the law punishes an individual while another compensates them for that punishment. It draws a clear line, preventing claimants from shifting responsibility for their crimes to a third-party tortfeasor, even where that tortfeasor’s negligence was a factual cause of the mental state which led to the crime.

Verdict: The appeal was dismissed. The claimant was barred by the principle of ex turpi causa from recovering damages for losses consequent upon his criminal act and subsequent detention.

Source: Gray v Thames Trains [2009] UKHL 33 (17 June 2009)