Re W (Grb)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | UTJ Mitchell |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 155 (AAC) |
| Docket Number | CFP/2301/2018 1 |
| Year | 2020 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
Neutral Citation: [2020] UKUT 155 (AAC)
Judge: UTJ Mitchell
CFP/2301/2018 1
Court and Reference: Upper Tribunal (AAC);
Facts: In 2007, Mr W was found unfit to stand trial but to have committed the act of murder, the victim being his wife; he was made subject to hospital and restriction orders under ss37/41 Mental Health Act 1983. The question arose as to whether the rule against forfeiture precluded him from receiving an additional weekly state pension referable to his wife. Under s4 Forfeiture Act 1982, the Upper Tribunal may determine whether benefits under various statutes, including the state pension, are precluded by the forfeiture rule, ie that a person who has unlawfully killed another cannot benefit from that killing; and if so whether the rule should be modified on the facts (which is precluded in the case of a person convicted of murder).
In referring the matter, the Secretary of State asserted that Mr W had been convicted of murder, and case management directions were given to clarify that there was no such conviction. Thereafter, the question was whether, if the forfeiture rule applied, modification should be considered.
The forfeiture rule does not preclude Mr W from receiving the whole or part of the additional pension referable to his late wife.
1. The Secretary of State for Work & Pensions refers to the Upper Tribunal the question whether Mr W, by virtue of the forfeiture rule, would be precluded from receiving the whole or part of the state pension referable to his late wife. In other words, that part of Mr W's state retirement pension comprised of an additional pension. The Secretary of State's reference state that, if the forfeiture rule did not apply, the weekly amount of Mr W's additional pension would be £4.51 to 12 April 2017, £4.84 to 12 April 2018 and £4.84 to 12 April 2019.
2. On 13 February 2007, the Crown Court found that Mr W was “under a disability such as to render him unfit to be tried, and was found to have done the act of: Murder”. The victim was Mr W's wife.
3. The Crown Court imposed a restriction order on Mr W (without limit of time). The Judge's brief sentencing remarks noted that, at the relevant date, Mr W was suffering from mental illness described in psychiatric evidence as “a major depressive disorder”. The Secretary of State also supplied a news report about the tragic circumstances surrounding Mr W's wife's death in February 2006, which it is unnecessary for me to describe.
4. The Secretary of State's reference asserted that Mr W had been convicted of murder so that it was not open to the Upper Tribunal to modify the forfeiture rule in his case.
5. I had doubts as to whether the Secretary of State was correct to assert that Mr W had been convicted of murder. I gave case management directions which explained those doubts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
On a reference in respect of W under the Forfeiture Act 1982
...reference under the Forfeiture Act 1982 in respect of W (GRB) [2020] UKUT 155 (AAC) IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS CHAMBER Case No. CFP/2301/2018 ON A REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE FORFEITURE ACT 1982 Before: Mr E Mitchell, Judge of the Upper Tribunal. Determination unde......