Status: This project is complete. Our recommendations have been accepted by Government
There is rule that a murderer may not inherit from the person they have killed. This rule is well-established and we are not suggesting any changes to it. The issue is that the law also cuts out the murderer's descendants from the line of succession. This project looks to see whether it is right to bar the descendants of killers in this way.
The project arose out of a case decided by the Court of Appeal in 2000. A son murdered both his parents (who died intestate). The son forfeited his rights to the estate. The Court found that the son's son (the deceaseds' grandson) was also disinherited.
The project
On 27 July 2005 we published a final report (LC295). In our report we recommend that in any instance where a potential heir cannot inherit, or is disqualified from inheriting, property should be distributed as if that person had died. This means that:
-
Where there is no will, a killer forfeits an inheritance and their share will pass to the next in line. For example, if a son kills his parents, his share will pass to the grandchildren.
-
If a will states that money is left to 'A', "but if they should predecease me, to 'B'", then if A forfeits the inheritance, it should pass to B.
-
Where a potential heir refuses an inheritance (either under a will or on intestacy), it should pass to the person who would have received the money had the first heir died.
-
The report also recommends removing a small anomaly in intestacy law. Where a potential heir dies unmarried under the age of 18 but leaves children behind, the inheritance should go to their children.
Our Consultation Paper was published October 2003 (CP172). Most of the 30 responses we received welcomed the thrust of our proposals.
