In 2017, Alexander Lewis-Ranwell (ALR) killed three men in their own homes and was prosecuted for murder. He was subsequently found not guilty by reason of insanity at Exeter Crown Court and in 2020, he launched legal action against four organisations for negligence. In the days prior to the killings, ALR had been arrested twice – for a burglary and then for a serious assault. He alleged it should have been so obvious he was seriously mentally ill that he needed detention (ie, under the Mental Health Act 1983) and agencies were under a duty to do so. In turn, this would have prevented the killings for which he was tried and found not guilty (insanity).
To have failed to recognise his condition and the duty resulting from it, he contended it was a serious failure by Devon and Cornwall Police, G4S Healthcare (who provided healthcare services in police custody) as well as by Devon County Council (who run the Approved Mental Health Professional service) and by the Devon Partnership Trust (the mental health provider under whose care he had been before the awful events.
You can read at length, much more about the preceding events and the reviews of how the case was handled in a previous blog. It was a catalogue of problems and you’ll notice in that previous post links to reports in to what happened – I’m not entirely convinced by the findings of those reports, quite honestly.
ALR having launched his legal action however, three of the four organisations (interestingly, not Devon and Cornwall Police) launched a High Court action to have his claim struck out. A legal principle known as ex turpi causa means no one can bring a legal action which would allow them to benefit from their own law-breaking. The High Court dismissed the application, pointing out that ALR had not been found guilty of any law-breaking, becuase he was found ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ and therefore nothing should prevent him bringing a legal action for negligence.
COURT OF APPEAL
This is a new legal argument. It is literally unprecedented in British legal history. There is plenty about mental health patients trying to bring legal actions after their conviction for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, but that involves patients who were actually convicted of something. ALR’s case is therefore unique – he was not convicted and there is no obvious precedent for the High Court to refer to, for any kind of guidance on this. So the three organisations appealed and we have just learned the judgment from the Court of Appeal.
ALR is free to sue all four organisations – for negligence and for their alleged breach of his human rights. This is, of course, subject to any appeal they may make to the Supreme Court on this unprecedented point – and I do wonder whether we’ll see that. In addition to the mere fact it was unprecedented, it involved three appellate judges who were not unanimous. One said she would have allowed the appeal and struck out ARL’s claim, the others disagreed.
The legal nugget in all of this is whether the agencies can show “a turpitudinous act” – don’t you just love legal language?! This means an act of “knowing wrongfulness”. Insanity means, in summary, that the defendant “did not know what they were doing or did not know what they were doing was wrong” because of their illness. As such, it would always be difficult to show ALR had committed a turpitudinous act and the Court of Appeal is satisfied the appellants have failed to do so therefore, ALR’s attempt to sue the four organisations is allowed to proceed.
I will keep an eye out – but I’d like to see the claim proceed in full to see the outcome on the substantive points in a civil hearing. I haven’t been as fascinated by a civil challenge since MS v UK well oever a decade ago where there were also considerable efforts to have that struck out as seriously ill patients fought for their rights, as they saw them.
Update: barrister Alex Ruck-Keene KC has produced a more comprehensive analysis of this judgment if you want real legal insight in to this.
Winner of the President’s Medal, the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award
All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation. (c) Michael Brown, 2024
I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current. Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.
Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk
Mental Health Cop 