The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession ... - Law Commission

killer’s share becomes bona vacantia rather than going to the other parent, as the
gift to the surviving parent in section 46(1)(iv) is conditional on the deceased
leaving only one parent.
9. The same would seem to apply where the deceased was killed by a grandparent.
The gift to uncles and aunts (even those not descended from the killer) does not
take effect, as it only applies if “there is no member of this class”, that is,
grandparents.
The view of Sedley LJ
10. Throughout this Report we have assumed that the majority view in Re DWS
(deceased) is correct. On the minority view, as expressed by Sedley LJ, the
position would be simpler and more consistent. Every mention of a person failing
to attain a vested interest, whether in section 47(2) and (4) or in the conditions in
section 46(1), would mean that the person failed to attain such an interest by
dying without having attained majority, married or formed a civil partnership.
Accordingly, with the possible exception of the spouse’s statutory legacy and life
interest, all forfeited property would become bona vacantia. In effect, the
objective of not allowing potential heirs to profit from their own crime would be
achieved by confiscation.
Summary
11. In brief:
(1) The normal effect of the forfeiture rule is that the forfeited interest
becomes bona vacantia and does not go to the next relative in order of
priority.
(2) The main exception is where the killer is the only surviving member of a
class of beneficiaries under a statutory trust, or where all the other
members are the killer’s descendants. In these cases section 47(2) or (4)
has the effect of deeming the deceased to have died without leaving any
members of the relevant class, and the property devolves on the next
statutory class.
(3) Where the killer is one of several beneficiaries under a statutory trust,
some of whom are not his descendants, the position is uncertain but we
believe that the killer’s putative share becomes bona vacantia.
Effect of our recommendations
12. Under our proposed reforms, the property will devolve in exactly the same way as
if the killer had predeceased the victim. The order would be the same as that set
out in paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 of the Report. In other words:
(1) Where the killer is a spouse, the property would devolve to the victim’s
children and grandchildren, followed by their parents.
(2) Where the killer is a parent, the killer’s share would pass to the other
parent – followed by a sibling, grandparent, aunt or uncle.
(3) Where the killer is a sibling, the sibling’s children would take the sibling’s
share. If the killer has no children, it would be divided equally among the
victim’s other siblings.
48