Analysis
The deceased was married to the claimant. In 2019, when he was 81 and she was 74, a car they were driving in was involved in a road accident. The deceased died of his injuries. The claimant was driving, and was prosecuted for causing the deceased’s death by careless driving. She pleaded guilty, was given a suspended prison sentence and was disqualified from driving for 12 months.
The deceased’s will left his residuary estate to the claimant. In the event that the claimant predeceased the deceased, the will provided for legacies to the defendants. The deceased was also joint tenants with the claimant of their home.
The claimant applied to the court for a declaration as to whether the forfeiture rule applied and, if so, for it to be modified under s2 Forfeiture Act 1982. The second and third defendants did not contest the claim. The first defendant filed an acknowledgment of service indicating an intention to contest the claim, but failed to comply with a direction that she file and serve evidence addressing the issues in it and took no further part.
Held:
Did the forfeiture rule in s1 Forfeiture Act 1982 apply?
In Dunbar v Plant, the Court of Appeal had held that the forfeiture rule applied to all cases of manslaughter, despite the law on unlawful killing having changed to reflect different degrees of culpability, with manslaughter encompassing cases involving little more than inadvertence. There is no logical reason to apply the rule to all cases of manslaughter (including those involving little more than inadvertence) but not to a case of causing death by careless driving. The forfeiture rule therefore does apply to cases of causing death by careless driving.
Should the forfeiture rule be modified under s2 Forfeiture Act 1982?
The sentencing judge had acknowledged that the claimant’s loss of her husband was itself a punishment far exceeding any which the court could pass or would consider passing on her. However he had also held that her lapse in concentration while driving had been significant. He had also expressed concern that she did not fully recognise that her driving was to blame for the accident. She had, however, pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and did not seek to play down her responsibility in the sentencing hearing.
It was relevant that the accident had happened when the claimant was driving her husband to his sister’s funeral, but had turned back unexpectedly at his request having become lost, which had led to her driving for a very long period, and that the accident had happened when it was raining and getting dark. While the lapse of concentration was significant, it was nonetheless a lapse of a few moments.
The deceased and claimant’s house had been dilapidated when purchased and both had worked hard at making it into their dream home. They had run a B&B business there. It was purchased in joint names with the intention of the survivor becoming entitled to it.
While the first defendant had filed a statement (without a statement of truth) claiming that the deceased had intended to change his will, this could carry little weight especially given her failure to file evidence as directed or to subsequently engage with the proceedings. The fact remained that the will had not been changed and that in the circumstances it must be taken to contain the deceased’s intentions at the date of his death.
It was also significant that the second and third defendants were not contesting the claim, and that the second defendant’s wife had provided a reference for the claimant to the criminal trial judge.
In the circumstances, it would be unjust to apply the forfeiture rule to the deceased’s share in the home or the gift in his will. The loss of either would be significantly out of proportion to the claimant’s culpability in the offence.
JUDGMENT HHJ JARMAN QC: [1] The claimant, Mrs Amos, claims a declaration as to whether the forfeiture rule applies to her and if so, applies for modification of the effect of that rule under s2 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 (the 1982 Act). [2] The circumstances in which the need to make the claim arises …Continue reading "Amos v Mancini [2020] WTLR 417"