Lewis-Ranwell v. Devon Partnership NHS Trust and Others (Supreme Court 18 March 2026)
Introduction
This case was brought on behalf of an individual who, in 2019, killed three men at random during a psychotic episode, believing them to be paedophiles. It was alleged on his behalf that several public bodies involved in his case and an organisation instructed by the police had failed in their duty of care towards him. Three defendants applied to strike out his claim on grounds of illegality. This application was rejected by the High Court and, by a majority, the Court of Appeal. Both we (on behalf of the trust) and two other defendants therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.
Detail
Mr. Lewis-Ranwell had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and had spent some time in psychiatric intensive care in 2016 and 2017. On 8 February 2019 he was arrested on suspicion of burglary at a farm near Barnstaple and detained. He was released on bail early the following day and shortly afterwards he was arrested for causing grievous bodily harm to an elderly man. On the morning of 10 February he was once again released on bail. The three killings took place later that day.
During both periods of police detention, the claimant behaved violently and erratically. He was seen or spoken to by mental health specialists from Group 4 Security (engaged by Devon and Cornwall Police) and the NHS trust. The need for a Mental Health Act assessment was discussed with an approved professional employed by Devon County Council, but this was not arranged.
At his criminal trial, the claimant was found by the jury to be not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. The judge made a hospital order with restrictions, under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and he was sent to Broadmoor Hospital where he remains.
The defendants applied to strike out his claim, which included damages for his loss of liberty, and an indemnity in respect of claims made against him by relatives of his victims. As this was a strike-out application, the court was required to assume that the claimant’s allegations were true.
Decision
The Justices considered in detail legal authorities on the defence of illegality, which has existed for centuries. They concluded that even though the claimant had been found not guilty of murder, nevertheless what he had done was unquestionably illegal and therefore the defence of illegality was engaged. To allow the claim to proceed would give rise to a series of inconsistencies, including the civil courts potentially awarding the claimant compensation when the criminal court had ordered his lawful detention. Further, under civil law, the claimant was liable to his victims for the civil wrong of battery, irrespective of the verdict at his criminal trial. To hold that the illegality defence does not prevent him from suing the defendants would be inconsistent with his liability in tort. The claim for an indemnity in respect of any claims on behalf of his victims would be banned on the basis of public policy. For all these reasons, the Justices unanimously struck out Mr. Lewis-Ranwell’s claims.
Comment
The facts of this case were truly shocking. Whilst Mr. Lewis-Ranwell did not meet the criteria for a murder conviction, his actions were undoubtedly illegal and allowing him to recover compensation in such circumstances would clearly have been inappropriate. It is notable that the most senior court in the country was unanimous is agreeing a strike-out, despite lower courts taking the opposite view. This was therefore a gratifying victory for the NHS and other defendants. Whilst cases of this kind are rare, we did have several others that were awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling and accordingly all of those should now likewise fail.
