The recent case of Leeson v McPherson serves as a reminder of the melancholy importance of the Forfeiture Act 1982, which prevents those guilty of unlawfully aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the death^[1] of someone from whom they expect to inherit, from doing so.

Paula Leeson (Paula) tragically died in a swimming pool, on holiday in Denmark, on 6 June 2017.  Paula’s husband, Don McPherson (Don) was charged with her murder, but was not convicted, after the Judge directed the jury to return a verdict of “not guilty,” following Don’s successful submission in court that there was no claim to answer. Though the evidence produced during the criminal trial was insufficient to secure a conviction, Paula’s father (Willy) and son (Ben) later sought to rely on this evidence in the civil court, to prevent Don from inheriting under Paula’s estate. Their claims were that:

1. Don unlawfully killed Paula, and so had lost any right to benefit from Paula’s estate or her share of jointly held assets, such as the matrimonial home (Forfeiture Claim); 
2. Paula’s will was invalid because Don forged the signature of one of the witnesses; therefore, Paula died intestate. Ben and Willy proposed that Ben should be appointed as the personal representative of Paula’s estate (Probate Claim); and,
3. Don should be removed as a trustee of certain life insurance policies written in trust by Paula, and over which Don had gained control by deception. Don should be replaced as trustee by Ben and Willy (Trusts Claim).

Background

Paula and Don had led quite different lives before they met and married, though Paula was unaware of this, due to Don’s obfuscation. Paula was a responsible, family-oriented person, who lived within her means and worked for the family company. On the other hand, Don had been convicted of thirty-one dishonesty offences across three countries, was known by seven aliases, and had what he characterized as a "disturbed relationship with money". 

Between meeting Paula, and causing her eventual death, Don took out seven joint life insurance policies and made sure to check that, upon the first death, these policies would pay out to the surviving spouse. Don also explored various expensive hobbies and envisioned a lavish lifestyle for himself, all of which were beyond his means, and which did not fit well alongside the debt that he had built up. However, Don assured his friends that he expected to come into money soon.  He then booked a holiday to Denmark, in a remote cottage; took out not one, but three, travel insurance policies, and convinced a reluctant Paula to come with him.

After Paula died, Don recounted three, different accounts of the circumstances leading up to her death to various authorities, and falsely stated that Paula had been ill, could not swim, and was prone to fainting. Don delayed notifying the Leeson family of Paula’s death, and again, gave differing accounts of what had happened. Despite his apparent confusion and supposed grief, Don had the presence of mind to take possession of Paula’s phone, and delete a number of call records, messages, and emails. He also managed to substantially move his finances around and started to cash in the various insurance policies he had taken out on the life of an unwitting Paula. Don also attempted to use his position as trustee of Paula’s LV and Scottish Widows policies, a position which he had gained through deception, to benefit from the proceeds, falsely claiming that these policies had been arranged to pay off his mortgage liabilities, rather than for the true purpose of benefitting Ben. 

Judgment 

Upon considering the evidence, the court concluded without a doubt that Don had deliberately and unlawfully killed Paula by compressing her neck in an arm lock, through which she had become unconscious, fallen into the pool, and drowned. This meant that the Forfeiture Claim was successful, as Don had unlawfully procured Paula’s death of Paula and was therefore prevented from benefitting from her death. The court ordered that Don would not benefit from Paula’s share of their jointly held assets; nor from Paula’s will, or her estate in the event of an intestacy; nor from the proceeds of the joint insurance policies, which he had procured without Paula’s knowledge.

The court also concluded that Paula’s will was invalid, having determined that one of the witnesses’ signatures had been forged by Don. Paula’s estate would, therefore, pass under the intestacy rules, with Ben appointed as Paula’s personal representative.  

The court also concluded that it would be unfeasible to leave Don in position, as the trustee of Paula’s LV and Scottish Widows policies, and appointed Ben and Willy in his place.
 

[1] s.1(2) of the Forfeiture Act 1982