The Forfeiture rule – when is relief granted?

Peter and Sheila Thomson were both in their eighties. They were a devoted, loving couple with no children. They had agreed between themselves that, if they ever both stopped living their ‘normal’ lives, they would want to end their lives while still capable of doing so.

Sheila was suffering from advanced dementia and Peter had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and an enlarged aorta.

Peter was found hanging in their home, having committed suicide, with a note attached to his chest, stating that on 18 April 2015 at approximately 20.10, his wife had died. Sheila had been heavily sedated and then suffocated by her husband.  A note addressed to the Coroner had been left explaining what had happened and why.

Under Sheila’s Will she had left everything to her husband, providing he was proved to have survived her. In default of Peter`s surviving her, Sheila`s will provided gifts to various charities and friends.

Peter’s Will provided for the same charities and friends.

How the Law was applied

The Forfeiture Rule would prevent Peter from inheriting under his wife’s Will because he had killed her. This would mean that distant relatives of Sheila’s would benefit under the intestacy rules. The charities and friends would not benefit.

Macmillan, one of the charities under Peter’s Will, applied for relief, so that the beneficiaries could benefit via Peter’s Will.

The court exercised its discretion to grant relief from the otherwise harsh effect of the forfeiture rule.  Mr Justice Mark Raeside QC considered:

(1) Peter’s conduct

This was premeditated, fastidious, open, honest and straightforward from the point of view of those who had to investigate this killing. He had left full details to assist the investigations.

(2) Sheila’s conduct

Her severe dementia meant that she could not be responsible for her own conduct.

(3) Other material circumstances

Of particular importance was the loving relationship between the couple and the fact that they  had reached an agreement regarding ending their lives should these circumstances come to pass. Peter had ensured that his wife was comfortable and did not suffer; he also achieved no financial benefit from the death of his wife.

Mr Justice Raeside concluded that in all the circumstances relief should be granted.

Conclusion

This case illustrates the type of circumstances in which the court will consider modifying the effect of the forfeiture rule on the person who unlawfully killed, thus enabling them (or their estate) to benefit from an estate that has arisen as a result of the unlawful killing.

The provision is an important one as it allows the court to use its discretion, which is of particular significance in cases of domestic violence and diminished responsibility.