Yesterday’s judgment in this case is interesting: their Lordships have decided that Kerrie Gray, who was injured in the Ladbroke Grove rail crash of 1999, cannot recover damages in negligence from Thames Trains and Network Rail for the consequences of his own criminal acts. Following the crash he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression; one night he stabbed a man to death. He was convicted of manslaughter and detained under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
Mr. Gray wanted damages for his loss of earnings while detained and for his feelings of guilt, and to be indemnified against any damages claim against him by the family of his victim. An outrageous, loonily litigious claim of the kind taxi-drivers often associate with the Human Rights Act. Note that that legislation plays no part in the case. But the Lords have dished him, led by Lord Hoffmann who makes it clear that the law is against him since there is a principle based on public policy that you can’t recover damages which flow from a sentence lawfully imposed on you for your own unlawful act. This is Lord Hoffmann’s “narrow rule”, and deals with the loss of earnings claim. Lord Hoffmann also says there is a wider rule of public policy that you cannot recover for damage which is the consequence of your own criminal act. He explains at paragraph 32 why he distinguishes between the wide and the narrow rules; the wider rule comes into play, since it precludes damages for guilty feelings, and the indemnity.
This is an obviously sound, common sense judgment, and many members of the public will be astonished, I think, that these points needed to be decided in our highest court rather than being the sort of elementary point dealt with at a lower level. I’m glad human rights points were not argued in favour of the claims (there might conceivably have been an uphill argument based on Z v UK (see paras. 91-104) that Lord Hoffmann’s rules are “exlusionary” and in breach of article 6) and dread to think what Lord Hoffmann would have said if they had been.
The decision is indeed one which accords with common sense. It was really only applying long-standing legal policy. However, many people will NOT be astonished that the matter was argued because raising such points is almost de rigeur with many lawyers these days.
It is not only that most rapes are not by strangers. There is also not much evidence that most rapists are serial offenders – even when they are, they have not been arrested for any of the offences. I am afraid that the DNA database will do very little to solve rape cases unless your cousin Cara is willing to contribute to it.
Oops – schoolboy error. I commented on the wrong post!
So Thames Trains won by using Ex turpi? they awarded him damages up until the crime was committed didn’t they? Or has this case been appealed since this article, because i’m pretty sure house of lords awarded him damages.