(C) THE FORFEITURE RULE

It is in connection with the commission of unlawful killings where the forfeiture principle has proved to be most important. Here the principle is called the forfeiture rule,^[1] as has been recognized by the Forfeiture Act 1982. Section 1 states that: ‘the “forfeiture rule” means the rule ofpublic policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing.’

Originally, any benefits which accrued to an offender as a result of the commission of murder and other felonies were forfeited to the Crown, but this rule was abolished by the Forfeiture Act 1870. Consequently, the effect of the forfeiture rule today is that the benefits which accrue to the criminal as a result of an unlawful killing are forfeited to the person who is entitled to them once the claims of the criminal, or those claiming through the criminal, are discounted. The uncompromising rigidity of this forfeiture rule has often been criticized^[2] and its application has now been qualified by the Forfeiture Act 1982.^[3]

• [1] For general discussion of this rule see TK Earnshaw and PJ Pace, ‘Let the Hand Receiving It Be Ever SoChaste’ (1972) 37 MLR 481.
• [2] See, for example, J Chadwick, ‘A Testator’s Bounty to His Slayer’ (1914) 30 LQR 211.
• [3] But the rule continues to be applied strictly in other jurisdictions which have no equivalent statutoryprovision. See, for example, Re Edwards [2014] VSC 392 (Victoria, Australia).