The Forfeiture Act 1982 precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another person from inheriting any benefit from their estate. This well-known rule of public policy is widely interpreted to include those convicted of murder, manslaughter and other types of unlawful killing.
However, under Section 2 of the Act, the Court does have discretion to waive the forfeiture rule and recently exercised this in two cases, allowing claimants to inherit from their husbands’ estates despite having unlawfully caused their deaths.
The first case, Amos v Mancini and others [2020], relates to a 74-year-old woman whose careless driving caused the death of her husband. Sandra Amos and her late husband Royston Amos travelled from their Welsh home to Canterbury in January 2019 to attend a funeral. On the way home, when Mrs Amos was driving in the dark and rainy weather conditions, she failed to stop and crashed into the back of a queue of stationary vehicles. Her husband died in hospital later the same day as a result of his injuries.
Mrs Amos was charged with causing death by careless driving under the Road Safety Act 2006. She pleaded guilty at an early stage and received a suspended prison sentence. Mr Amos left a Will which provided that his estate would go to Mrs Amos. They also had a jointly owned property which was held as joint tenants and, therefore, Mrs Amos would inherit her husband’s share by the law of survivorship. However, Mr Amos’ daughter argued that Mrs Amos should not receive her inheritance under the forfeiture rule.
Ordinarily, forfeiture would apply in cases of causing death by careless driving but the Court granted relief from forfeiture to Mrs Amos. The presiding Judge considered that the circumstances of the accident and the fact that Mrs Amos pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity were relevant. The Court held that to apply forfeiture in these particular circumstances would be unjust and disproportionate to her own fault, given that she did not intentionally or deliberately kill her husband. She was, therefore, entitled to her inheritance.
The second case was that of Challen v Challen [2020]. In 2011, Sally Challen was found guilty of murdering her husband after attacking him with a hammer. She was the victim of many years of domestic abuse at his hands, and he also had several affairs throughout their marriage. Mr Challen died without a Will and, under the intestacy rules, Mrs Challen would ordinarily inherit his estate. Mrs Challen’s murder conviction was subsequently quashed and she later pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
The tragic circumstances, the extent of the deceased’s coercive control and Mrs Challen’s mental state led to the Courts’ decision to waive the forfeiture rule. Consequently, Mrs Challen will inherit her husband’s estate. The presiding Judge emphasised that suffering from coercive control or domestic violence will not automatically mean that the forfeiture rule is waived. Each case will turn on its own facts and the default position remains that a person who unlawfully kills another is prohibited from inheriting from their estate. Clearly, these are complex matters and this is an area of law where expert advice should be sought.
