“How to get away with murder” – is it possible to kill a person and still benefit from their estate?

The June 2021 case of Winnister v Winnister looks at this in more detail.  Mr Winnister had admitted to killing his wife at their family home in Kent after which he went to the pub for a pint and a packet of crisps.

Under the law of England and Wales, the general rule is that your estate will pass to the beneficiaries stated in a valid will or if there is no valid under the intestacy rules. One of the limited exceptions to this is under the Forfeiture Act 1982. This act precludes an individual who commits murder from benefitting from the victim’s estate (via inheritance).  If this were a blanket rule it would have meant that Mr Winnister could not benefit from the victim’s estate. However, under section 2 of the Act, the court has a discretion to make an order modifying or excluding the effect of the forfeiture rule in exceptional circumstances. This is what happened here.

After Mr Winnister was arrested, a psychiatric expert found that he was “suffering from severe depression with psychotic features” – although he was not legally insane. Ultimately, he had become convinced that his wife was having an affair with their handyman. It was on the grounds of his unstable mental health that he had escaped a murder charge and instead pleaded guilty to manslaughter with diminished responsibility. He was sentenced to an indefinite hospital order. This was the pivotal factor which led to the court exercising their discretion under s.2 of the Forfeiture act.

Shortly after being charged, Mr Winnister’s legal representatives brought a claim on his behalf to recover his share of the victims £2.5m estate. The victim’s will left the entirety of her estate to her husband.

If the normal forfeiture rules applied, the victim’s estate would have been split amongst her “default” heirs – as dictated by the rules of intestacy.  However, the judge decided that Mr Winnister would receive a slice of the victim’s estate based on a 17.5% share, such that, after tax it is likely that Mr Winnister will receive over £200,000 from his victim’s estate.

This sort of ruling is not commonplace The judge cited Mr Winnister’s ‘low or very low culpability’ as a factor which led to him approving the settlement.

Previous case law identified the following factors as being relevant :

1. the relationship between the killer and the victim
2. the degree of moral culpability for what has happened;
3. the nature and gravity of the offence
4. the intentions of the deceased;
5. the size of the estate and the value of the property in dispute
6. the financial position of the killer; and
7. the moral claims and wishes of those who would be entitled to take the property on the application of the forfeiture rule.

To date, the full judgement has not been released. Had the case facts been different, e.g. due to the size of the estate or either party having dependants, then the court may not have come to the same conclusion.  But on this occasion, despite having killed his wife, Mr Winnister was able to benefit from her estate.

Get in touch with our contentious probate team

To speak to a member of our expert team about a will dispute, contact us today by calling 0330 175 7621 or email us at enquiries@ibblaw.co.uk.