Decision No:  C1/94(WB)

THE FORFEITURE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1982

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS AND BENEFITS
(NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992

	DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER

1.	This is a reference by the Department of Health & Social Services under the provisions of regulation 8(1) of the Social Security Commissioners Procedure Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1987, to determine whether the claimant is precluded by virtue of the forfeiture rule from receiving widows benefit, following the death of her husband on 19 February 1993.

2.	On 29 November 1993 at Downpatrick Crown Court the claimant pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to the manslaughter of her husband.  On the following day she was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment suspended for 3 years.

3.	The Department submits that a forfeiture rule question arises under the relevant legislation; the effect of which may be summarised as follows:-

		(a) 	Article 3(1) of the Forfeiture (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, 
			(the Order), defines the forfeiture rule as the Rule of public
			policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who
			has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in
			consequence of the killing.

		(b)	Article 6(1) of the Order provides that any question as to whether 
			a person should be precluded by the forfeiture rule from receiving
			a social security benefit to which there  would otherwise be
			entitlement, shall be determined by a Commissioner.

		(c)	Paragraphs (1A) to (1F) of Article 6 of the Order empower the
			Commissioner to modify the effect of the forfeiture rule if he
			is satisfied that, having regard to the conduct of the offender
			and the deceased and to such other circumstances as appear to
			the Commissioner to be material, the justice of the case so 
			requires. 

4.	As stated, the claimant pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and I accept that a forfeiture rule question arises.  Accordingly the first matter to be considered is whether the rule applies in the circumstances of this case.  As was explained in R 1/86(WB), there is no longer a general or inflexible rule that every type of crime operates so as to cause public policy to make the courts apply the forfeiture rule.  There may well be cases of manslaughter in respect of which the rule would not be applied.  However, such cases would be exceptional, and having considered the background facts of the instant case I am satisfied that it is one in which the forfeiture rule should apply.  In reaching this conclusion I have taken account of the circumstances surrounding the death of the claimant's husband as set out in the judgement and sentence of the Trial Judge.

5.	I have next to consider whether this is a case in which the forfeiture rule should be modified as permitted by the provisions of Article 6 paragraphs (1A) to (1F) of the Order.  Paragraph (1B) provides that the Commissioner shall not modify the effect of the rule unless he is satisfied that, having regard to the conduct of the offender and the deceased and to such other circumstances as appear to the Commissioner to be material, the justice of the case so requires.  I have accordingly had regard to all of those matters, including in particular the mitigating factors referred to by the trial Judge and the leniency of the sentence imposed.  The conclusion which I have reached is that the justice of the case requires the effect of the forfeiture rule to be modified in this instance.  The extent of the modification upon which I have decided is that the forfeiture rule should continue to apply until 19 February 1995.  I accordingly hold that, as from 20 February 1995, the forfeiture rule should be modified so as to relieve the claimant, as from that date, from all consequences thereof in respect of any benefit or advantage under a relevant enactment within the meaning of the Order, and that my decision should apply to any future claim for a benefit or advantage under any such relevant enactment in which a question such as is mentioned in Article 6(1) of the Order arises by reason of the same unlawful killing.

6.	I remit this case to the Adjudication Officer for disposal in the light of my decision on the forfeiture rule Question.

(Signed): R. R. Chambers

CHIEF COMMISSIONER

1 June 1994