Illegality: losses flowing from the claimant's own crime (Henderson v Dorset Healthcare)

In Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust [2020] UKSC 43, on materially similar facts, the Supreme Court affirmed Gray v Thames Trains as consistent with the 'trio of considerations' approach in Patel v Mirza. A claimant who has been convicted of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, with significant personal responsibility for the killing, cannot recover losses flowing from the sentence imposed (such as detention) or from the killing itself (such as guilt and depression). Recovering the inheritance lost under a Forfeiture Act order would also subvert that specific statutory regime. Allowing recovery would undermine the consistency of the law and the criminal court's decision. The diminished responsibility plea did not remove the significant personal responsibility found by the criminal court. It was common ground, however, that pain, suffering and loss of amenity arising before the killing remained recoverable. Only head (1) is therefore recoverable.

Why A is wrong: Henderson held that losses flowing from the sentence or the killing are irrecoverable even where responsibility was diminished but not removed.

Why B is wrong: Damages for detention under the sentence and for guilt and depression consequent on the killing are also barred.

Why D is wrong: Psychiatric harm consequent on the killing flows from the claimant's own criminal act and is irrecoverable under the Gray rules applied in Henderson.

Why E is wrong: Illegality does not bar every claim by an offender; losses for pain and suffering arising before the killing were recoverable.