Paranoid schizophrenic who killed elderly men continues compensation battle

A paranoid schizophrenic who killed three elderly men but was acquitted of murder by reason of insanity is embroiled in the latest stage of a civil court compensation fight.

Former scaffolder Alexander Lewis-Ranwell, from Croyde, Devon, was cleared of murder after a trial at Exeter Crown Court in November 2019.

Jurors heard how he had battered Anthony Payne, 80, with a hammer, and bludgeoned 84-year-old twins Dick and Roger Carter with a shovel, in Exeter, Devon, in February 2019.

Lewis-Ranwell, who was 28 at the time of the Exeter Crown Court trial, has sued G4S Health Services (UK), Devon & Cornwall Police, Devon Partnership NHS Trust and Devon County Council alleging that all four were “negligent” in their treatment of him.

G4S, the trust and the council asked a High Court judge to strike out “common law” claims made against them – but Mr Justice Garnham refused their applications.

Lawyers representing the three organisations on Tuesday challenged Mr Justice Garnham’s decision at a Court of Appeal hearing in London.

Appeal judges Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Underhill, and Lady Justice Andrews are scheduled to consider legal arguments over two days.

Mrs Justice May, the judge who oversaw Lewis-Ranwell’s trial at Exeter Crown Court, had made a hospital order.

She said Lewis-Ranwell would be cared for in hospital with a “restriction order” and would not be “allowed into the community” until “the agencies” were “absolutely content” that it was “safe for him to be released”.

Lawyers told appeal judges that Lewis-Ranwell had been ordered to be detained at Broadmoor Hospital, in Crowthorne Berkshire, under the terms of mental health legislation.

Barrister Andrew Warnock KC, who is leading the council’s legal team, told appeal judges that Lewis-Ranwell had brought proceedings “at common law” and under human rights legislation.

He said Lewis-Ranwell alleged that the four organisations were liable to compensate him for the “consequences of the killing” on the grounds that they had been “negligent in their treatment of him”.

Mr Warnock said G4S, the trust and the council had made applications to strike out the common law claims.

He told appeal judges, in a written argument, that the litigation raised an issue of “wider public importance” and added: “It raises an important question of whether those who have killed others but are not guilty by reason of insanity may sue mental health authorities for the consequences of the killings by reason of deficiencies in the care they received.”

Lord Justice Underhill suggested that Lewis-Ranwell’s compensation claim could continue – under human rights legislation – even if the appeal was successful.

Lawyers said, outside court, that the human rights aspect of the claim could continue even if the common law claims were blocked.

Selena Plowden KC, who is leading Lewis-Ranwell’s legal team, told appeal judges, in a written case outline, how jurors had given a note to Mrs Justice May, at the end of the trial at Exeter Crown Court, referring to “failings in care”.

She said: “The judge read the note in open court, which stated: ‘We the jury have been concerned about the state of psychiatric provision in our county of Devon. Can we be assured that the failings in care for ALR (Lewis-Ranwell) will be appropriately addressed following this trial?”

Ms Plowden told appeal judges that Lewis-Ranwell, who was born on March 17 1991 and is now 32, had brought claims against the four organisations “concerning those failings”.

She said Mr Justice Garnham had refused to strike out a claim for “inadequate provision” of mental health services in police custody between February 8 and 10 2019.

“As a consequence of the alleged systematic and individual failings, the claimant was not assessed under the Mental Health Act and, despite warnings that he posed a risk to the safety of others, he was released from custody (twice) and, within hours, went on to kill three innocent men while acting under delusions,” she said.

“The defendants argue that public policy favours debarring the claim on the basis of consistency and public confidence.”

She said Mr Justice Garnham was “right to find” that “permitting the claim” would “not introduce inconsistency”.