Forfeiture Act 1982
| Published date | 01 October 1983 |
| Date | 01 October 1983 |
| Author | Andy Khan |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X8305600412 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
ANDY
KHAN,
MA.,
LL.B., Dip.Ed.
University
of
Leeds
FORFEITURE
ACT
1982
The forfeiture rule had long been a well established rule oflaw, under
which public policy principle precluded aperson who unlawfully
killed another from acquiring financial benefit in consequence of
that
killing. The common law took the view
that
no one should be
able to benefit from his own killing. According to Lane, J, in Gray v.
Barr[1970] 2 Q.B. 554,
the
broad principle of commonlaw is
that
no
man should be allowed to profitat another person's expense from his
own conscious and deliberate crime. A murderer (In the Estate
of
Crippen [1911] p. 108) or even a felonious suicider tBerisford v.
Royal
Insurance Co. Ltd. [1938]
AiC,
586) have had their claims
defeated on the grounds
that
it would be contrary to public policy to
assist a personal representative to recover what would be the fruits of
the crime committed by the assured person. The aim, according to
Mr. Justice Lane (as he then was), first of all is
"to
deter the intending criminal by ensuring
that
no one shall
indemnify him against loss he may incur as a result of his crime
...
Secondly, it is no
part
of the court's function to assist those who
do commit deliberate crime to recover money to which they can
lay claim only by proving the commission of
that
crime" [1970]2
All E.R. at 710).
This is in line with In the Estate
of
Crippen. supra, where it was
stated:
"It
is clear that the law is,
that
no person can obtain, or enforce,
any rights resulting to him from his own crime; neither can his
representative, claiming under him, obtain or enforce any such
rights. The
human
mind revolts at the very idea
that
any other
doctrine could be possible in
our
system of jurisprudence".
Recently, it was decided by the High Court in R. v. National
Insurance Commissioners. ex parte O'Connor [1981] I All E.R. 769,
that where a woman was charged with murdering her husband
and
she was convicted of manslaughter, public policy demanded that she
should be disentitled to a widow's statutory allowance (she had
created her status of widowhood by killing her husband, although
there were mitigating circumstances). The Lord Chief Justice said
that
where it is plain
that
aperson's act was a deliberate, conscious
and
intentional act(s), he should forfeit the right otherwise available.
However, not every crime operated so as to cause public policy to
make a court reject a claim. Only where a person was guilty of
deliberate, intentional
and
unlawful violence or threats of violence,
the claim should be excluded, howsoever the final death of the victim
October 1983 387
To continue reading
Request your trial