Recent Judicial Decisions
| Date | 01 April 1981 |
| Published date | 01 April 1981 |
| Author | John Wood |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X8105400208 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
PROFESSOR
SIR
JOHN
WOOD, C.B.E., LL.M.
The University
of
Sheffield.
Legal Correspondent
of
the
POLICE
JOURNAL
RECENT
JUDICIAL
DECISIONS
BURGLARS
CRASH
Ashton v. Turner [1980] 3 W.L.R. 756 Queen's Bench Division
This is a civil action arising out of the commission of a crime. Three
young men met in a public house. They continued drinking in various
places until 2 a.m. in the morning. Ashton, the plaintiff, who had no
money. suggested that they should break into a jeweller's shop. One
of the three refused, the defendent Turner took the car keys and
drove off. Eventually the two of them were concerned in breaking a
shop window and taking some radios. As they made their escape in
the car, Turner was driving, two taxis gave chase. The car reached a
speed of over 60 m.p.h. and skidded out of control. Ashton suffered
severe injuries including being partly crippled, having a speech defect
and an impaired memory. In all it was agreed that the damages
amounted to £70,000. The injured man, Ashton, sued the driver, and
the other man whose car was being used. The question in issue was
whether they were liable in tort.
The principal legal point in issue was the effect on civil liability of
the fact that the car was being used to escape from the scene of a
crime. Oddly there appears to have been no direct decision on this
point. The only help was dicta to be found in certain cases, dicta
which the trial Judge said had to be treated with caution.
The first case considered,
N.CB.
v. England [1954] A.C. 403,
raised the question of ex turpi causa (from an illegal cause) non actio
oritur (a claim will not arise). In the course of the discussion Lord
Asquith indicated that he thought that if two were together and one
used the safe blowing explosive carelessly, the other could probably
not sue for any resulting injury. This would not be so if in the course
of burglary one colleague picked the pocket of another- such being
unconnected with the crime. In Hardy v. Motor Insurers' Bureau
[1964] 2 Q.B. 745, it was said that reparation was not possible for the
injury caused in committing a crime. Such a defence was said to be
available where a widow sued where her husband had been killed in
an affray he had instigated. Indeed the generality of dicta in English
case law is that acriminal cannot bring a claim for negligence for
incidents occurring during the commission of a crime.
Two Australian cases deal with this point. In one, Godbolt v.
Fittock [1963] 63 S.R. (N.S.W.) 617 two cattle rustlers were in a
motor vehicle. The driver was negligent and the passenger sued,
unsuccessfully, for his injuries. The reason for hisfailure was thatthe
accident occurred within the criminal escapade.
April
/98/
171
To continue reading
Request your trial