Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1339

Facts

• The claimant, Gray, developed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) following a train crash caused by the negligence of Thames Trains Ltd.
• As a result of a psychotic episode arising from PTSD, Gray killed an individual and was convicted of manslaughter with diminished responsibility.
• Gray brought a claim against Thames Trains, seeking damages for loss of liberty, earnings, reputation, guilt, and civil liability to the deceased’s family.
• The House of Lords considered whether Gray could recover for losses that resulted from his own criminal act, in circumstances causally linked to the defendant’s initial tort.

Issues

1. Whether the doctrine of illegality prevented Gray from recovering damages in tort where the losses resulted from his own criminal conduct.
2. Whether the loss of liberty imposed by criminal sanction and subsequent related civil liabilities could be compensated in a civil claim.
3. How the principles of causation and public policy govern the relationship between criminal wrongdoing and recovery in tort.

Decision

• The House of Lords held that Gray’s claim was barred by the doctrine of illegality.
• The "narrow rule" of illegality prohibited Gray from recovering for losses directly corresponding to criminal sanctions imposed for his own unlawful act, such as loss of liberty.
• The "wide rule" of illegality further barred recovery for damages that, while not the sanction itself, were direct consequences of the criminal act—such as civil liability arising from killing another person.
• The immediate and inextricable cause of these losses was Gray’s own criminal act, and not the prior negligence of Thames Trains Ltd.
• The court maintained that permitting such claims would undermine the integrity of civil and criminal law, effectively allowing compensation for the consequences of a claimant's own offence.

Legal Principles

• The “narrow rule” of illegality bars recovery for losses constituting penalties imposed as a direct result of a claimant’s own criminal conduct, to maintain consistency between civil and criminal law.
• The “wide rule” disallows damages for consequences arising from the claimant’s criminal act, even where a defendant’s prior tort contributed indirectly.
• The doctrine exists to uphold public policy, prevent inconsistencies between civil and criminal proceedings, and bar claims allowing individuals to benefit, indemnify, or recover losses stemming from their own illegal acts.
• The proximity and causative link between the criminal act and the losses are central; losses must result immediately and inextricably from the illegal act itself for the illegality defence to apply.
• Later cases, such as Joyce v O’Brien [2013] EWCA Civ 546, add that foreseeability and joint criminal enterprise are relevant to causation, while Henderson v Dorset University NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1841 confirmed that Gray’s principles remain binding in tort claims after Patel v Mirza.

Conclusion

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd established that a claimant cannot recover damages in tort for losses arising directly or consequentially from their own criminal conduct. The judgment clarified the distinction between the narrow and wide rules of illegality, reaffirmed the centrality of causation, and underlined the continuing influence of these principles in tort law where criminal wrongdoing is involved.