Alexander Lewis-Ranwell (ALR) killed three elderly men in Exeter in February 2019. He was arrested the following day for another assault, thankfully non-fatal, and subsequently linked to the killings. Following that assault the day after, he was “sectioned” under the Mental Health Act 1983 and once the link was made, he was arrested from the psychiatric ward and charged with three counts of murder.
He stood trial for murder, was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was given a restricted hospital order, to be admitted to Broadmoor hospital where he remains to this day.
A few years ago, ALR sought to bring legal proceedings against four organisations for negligence because prior to the killings, he was arrested twice in two days for other violent assaults and in retrospect, especially given he was “sectioned” following the assault, it seems obvious he had been seriously mentally ill for days. In custody for each the two arrests before the killings, significant discussion and consideration was given as to whether he should be assessed under the MHA and on both occasions, it was decided against having an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) co-ordinate an assessment.
NEGLIGENCE
The idea of those four organisations’ negligence stems from the idea that their treatment and consideration of him prior to the killings was inadequate and had they conducted themselves correctly and assessed him, he may well have been sectioned and the killings would not have occurred. It follows he wouldn’t now be looking at spending the balance of his life in a high-secure hospital.
The four organisations are –
- G4S – a private sector company contracted to provide medical services in police custody for the police.
- Devon and Cornwall Police – on whose behalf G4S would act, having been sub-contracted by the Chief Constable.
- Devon Partnership Trust – the local provider MH trust who were involved by virtue of a mental health nurse who took part in discussions about the need for assessment prior to the killings.
- Devon County Council – the local authority who licence AMHPs, one of whom was involved in a s13 MHA consideration of whether there should bean assessment and discussed it with the doctor in police custody and the mental health nurse.
So ALR launched his legal action and it was almost immediately met with a response by three of the organisations (not the police service, interestingly).
THE DEFENCE OF ILLEGALITY
This latest case from the Supreme Court is unique in British legal history and it’s not just for that reason it is quite fascinating. The organisations pointed to a long-established legal principle that – and I will have to choose my words carefully here, for reasons you will shortly see – people responsible for criminal offences cannot be seen to profit from them, by suing organisations for negligence and being awarded money. This principle is long-established in law and several people convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility who had tried to sue for damages were flatly denied – end of discussion.
But ALR’s case is different, isn’t it? – he was found not guilty. Fair enough, he was not guilty by reason of insanity which means the court were happy he did, in fact, undertake criminal actions which killed those three guys in awful circumstances, but the legal outcome was that he was not guilty. No-one in British history has argued this before, so it was almost always going to end up in the Supreme Court. When the organisations first raised this point, they lost and so they appealed and they lost that as well.
This latest judgment of the Supreme Court reverses the decision take in the two lower courts and I’ve got some work yet to do, reading the full judgment.
FIRST IMPRESSIONS
The first thought I had when learning of this case a few years ago and I had this thought again this morning, reading the outcome was that it’s a shame we cannot have a legal case about whether the things which went wrong in this case amounted to negligence by one or more of those organisations. If you read my original post on ALR you will find a number of links to reports which were written about the events of the 8th, 9th, 10th February and my view was and still is that so many things went wrong or could be better handled and I’d have liked to see legal weight behind a declaration that what happened really wasn’t good enough.
For reason I gave previously, I think most of the organisations fell way short of what was required. My only consolation is that we are yet to have inquests for the victims and those will undoubtedly be Article 2 hearings where there is scope to examine those contributory issues and there may well be scope for the Coroner’s jury to make known their views about it all, if they think fit. For that to occur, we will have to hope the court asks the correct questions of witnesses and direct the jury accordingly.
But my main reaction to the actual judgment came from reading one part of Supreme Court response as to why they were striking out ALR’s claim and upholding the notion that Defence of Illegality ideas apply to those found not guilty by reason of insanity: that it may have, in broad terms, a deterrent effect. I spent a moment thinking that through.
DETERRENT EFFECT
We know a lot of violent crime is not pre-meditated. It can be impulsive, in the moment and not due to a careful weighing of “pros and cons”. Violent crime by those of us who are psychotic, detached from reality and who are driven by delusions or command hallucinations is even more problematic still. Can it be right that when someone is so affected by their mental health, as Ranwell-Lewis was, that there is any kind of deterrent effect from the fact you can’t sue organisations for neglect if any such neglect is a contributory factor to violent crimes you commit? I’m just not sure that’s how violent crime is brought about, most of the time – even when someone is not seriously mentally ill.
You can read a press summary of the judgment for yourself but don’t forget to read the detailed judgment if you are involved in this work – that’s where the detail lies.
Awarded the President’s Medal, by
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, 2026
I am not a police officer.
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 