Abstract
The proposition that a killer should not profit from the death of his or her victim started out as a principle, but rapidly turned into a rigid rule, known as the forfeiture rule. The courts have applied this rule rigidly to all forms of killing irrespective of the degree of moral blameworthiness. Concerns about the courts' inflexible approach to this rule prompted England, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales to adopt legislation. These statutes leave the rule unchanged, but give the courts the discretion to modify its effects in deserving cases. The New Zealand Law Commission did not favour a discretionary approach and recommended instead that Parliament enact a code setting out in plain language all homicidal heirs' rules. The Commission's Draft Succession (Homicide) Act 1997 specifies which killings should attract the rule and which ones should be exempted. It also sets out the consequences of applying the forfeiture rule.
This article discusses the common law and the two types of reforms. It concludes that New Zealand's proposed code of rules should not be adopted in its current form, because it will produce harsh and unsatisfactory results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.