The important case of Patel v Mirza [2016] was recently reconsidered in Henderson v Dorset Healthcare Trust [2020] and a knowledge of the recent case could well be worth a few more marks in any essay you might be writing.

The facts of Henderson v Dorset are truly tragic. Ecilia Henderson suffered from schizophrenia and during an episode she killed her mother by stabbing. She was subsequently convicted of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. She was not M’Naughton insane but was sentenced to a hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1983. Her criminal responsibility for her conduct was critical to the decision in the case.

Dorset Healthcare Trust admitted negligence; it had been aware of Ecilia’s psychotic state some ten days prior to the stabbing but had failed to return her to hospital. Ecilia claimed damages in respect of this negligence. The Health Trust defended the case on grounds of illegality.

The claim made its way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court was asked to distinguish a previous case Gray v Thames Trains [2009] (where the facts were substantially identical to those in Henderson v Dorset) on grounds that it was inconsistent with Patel v Mirza. The court declined to distinguish Gray. There were strong public policy grounds against allowing the perpetrator under criminal law to become a victim under tort law. The considerations in Gray were consistent with the three stage test in Patel v Mirza. The three stage test was restated and confirmed. The courts must consider:

1. “All relevant policy matters supporting the defence of illegality”, different weights can be attached to different factors.

2. Any policy considerations which would support the claim.

3. The overall proportionality of denying the claim.

The defence of illegality in this case was upheld. How do you feel about that? You could definitely rely on this case in any essay regarding consideration of public policy in the development of the law as well as in relation to illegality. Could well be worth a look!