{"id":8416,"date":"2025-07-11T14:26:58","date_gmt":"2025-07-11T13:26:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/law-news\/?p=8416"},"modified":"2025-07-11T17:11:05","modified_gmt":"2025-07-11T16:11:05","slug":"expert-comment-insane-killers-and-their-claims-for-compensation-lewis-ranwell-heads-to-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/law-news\/expert-comment-insane-killers-and-their-claims-for-compensation-lewis-ranwell-heads-to-the-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Expert comment – Insane killers and their claims for compensation: Lewis-Ranwell heads to the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kent Law School’s\u00a0 Per Laleng<\/a>, a senior lecturer in law, has been exploring the forthcoming Supreme Court case of Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services, which will clarify whether a claimant acquitted of murder by reason of insanity can bring tort claims for losses caused by their own unlawful acts.<\/p>\n

The case will test the scope of the illegality defence under the framework established in Patel v Mirza, and raises fundamental questions about the relevance of criminal responsibility, moral culpability, and legal coherence to the illegality defence.<\/p>\n

Per argues that the Court of Appeal majority reached the right result in permitting the claim, though it could have applied Patel more rigorously. He highlights the risks of denying compensation to individuals failed by institutional actors and identifies key issues for the Supreme Court: the role of moral blameworthiness, the meaning of \u201cpublic confidence\u201d in law, and whether causation analysis might help resolve the illegality conundrum. The case offers
\na further opportunity to clarify a difficult and important area of law.<\/p>\n

Read more here<\/a>.\u00a0Per is convening the Tort Law module for undergraduates in 2025\/26.<\/p>\n