The case of Revill v Newbery [1996] stands as a significant English Court of Appeal decision dealing with the boundaries of self-defence, the application of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, and the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio. It raised important questions about how far an occupier may go to protect property against intruders and whether a trespasser can claim damages for injury sustained during an unlawful act. The case emphasised that while trespassing is illegal, trespassers are still owed a limited duty of care under the 1984 Act.
Court and Jurisdiction
Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division), England and Wales
Date Decided: 2 November 1995
Judges: Neill LJ, Evans LJ, Millett LJ
Area of Law: Negligence; Occupiers’ liability; Trespass to land; Contributory negligence
What the Revill v Newbery Case Deals With
Revill v Newbery [1996] deals with the extent to which an occupier of land can use force to defend property against trespassers. Specifically, it considers whether an occupier may be found negligent or liable under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 when injuring a trespasser, and whether the doctrine of ex turpi causa can operate as a complete defence to such a claim. The case clarified that even when a claimant is engaged in criminal conduct, it does not automatically bar them from recovering damages for personal injury caused by the occupier’s excessive use of force.
Facts of Revill v Newbery
William Newbery, a seventy-six-year-old pensioner, owned a shed on his allotment in Lincolnshire. Following several previous break-ins, he decided to sleep inside the shed at night to guard his property. On one particular night, two men, Mark Revill and his accomplice Grainger, attempted to break into the shed to steal.
While Revill and Grainger were trying to gain entry, Newbery, aware of their presence, decided to scare them away. He took his 12-bore shotgun and fired it through a hole in the shed door. However, the shot struck Revill, causing serious injury. Newbery later stated that his intention was merely to frighten the intruders, not to harm them.
Subsequently, criminal proceedings were initiated. Revill admitted his attempted burglary and was prosecuted accordingly. Newbery, on the other hand, was charged with wounding offences but was acquitted in the criminal proceedings.
Despite his own illegal conduct, Revill brought a civil action against Newbery. He sued him for negligence and for breach of duty under section 1 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, claiming compensation for the injuries he suffered due to the gunshot.
Defence of Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
In response, Newbery relied on the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio, which translates to “no cause of action can arise from an immoral or illegal act.” He argued that because Revill was attempting to burgle his shed, he could not base a civil claim on the consequences of that criminal conduct. According to Newbery, allowing Revill to recover damages would be contrary to public policy and would amount to rewarding criminal behaviour.
In addition, Newbery contended that even if Revill were allowed to pursue the claim, the damages should be heavily reduced due to contributory negligence. He argued that Revill’s own illegal act of attempting to break into the shed had materially contributed to his injuries. Therefore, any damages awarded should be reduced significantly, as Revill bore primary responsibility for placing himself in harm’s way.
Issue Before the Court
The primary issue before the Court of Appeal in Revill v Newbery [1996] was whether Newbery owed a duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 to trespassers like Revill, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. A related question was whether the doctrine of ex turpi causa should operate as a complete defence to Revill’s claim, given that his injury occurred during the commission of an attempted burglary.
Decision at First Instance
At first instance, the trial judge found in favour of Revill, holding that Newbery was negligent. The court held that Newbery’s conduct fell below the standard of care expected from a reasonable person in his position. Although it was understandable that he wanted to protect his property, the level of force he used—firing a shotgun through a closed door without seeing his target—was excessive and unreasonable.
The judge rejected the argument that ex turpi causa provided a full defence, reasoning that the principle should not be used to deny compensation to an injured person merely because they were engaged in an illegal act. However, the court accepted that Revill’s own behaviour contributed to his injury and therefore reduced his damages by two-thirds on the ground of contributory negligence.
Appeal to the Court of Appeal
Newbery appealed against this decision, contending that the trial judge had erred in rejecting his defence and in finding him negligent. He maintained that the doctrine of ex turpi causa should have completely barred Revill’s claim and that firing the gun was reasonable in the circumstances to deter intruders.
In Revill v Newbery [1996], the Court of Appeal examined the nature of the duty owed by occupiers to trespassers under section 1(3)(b) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. The section provides that an occupier owes a duty to persons other than visitors (including trespassers) if:
- He is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists;
- He knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger; and
- The risk is one against which he may reasonably be expected to offer protection.
The judges—Neill LJ, Evans LJ, and Millett LJ—unanimously agreed that Newbery owed such a duty to Revill.
Court’s Reasoning in Revill v Newbery
Lord Justice Neill emphasised that Newbery’s act could not be justified as a mere attempt to frighten off intruders. The evidence demonstrated that the gun was fired at a horizontal level through the shed door, where anyone standing outside could easily be struck. This was not a warning shot; it was a deliberate act of firing a weapon knowing that someone was likely to be in harm’s way.
The court also drew a distinction between criminal responsibility and civil liability. Although Newbery had been acquitted in criminal proceedings, the standards of proof and the nature of liability in tort were different. Civil negligence depended on whether a reasonable person in the same position would have foreseen the risk of harm and avoided taking such action.
On the issue of ex turpi causa, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that while public policy prevents a claimant from profiting from their own wrongdoing, compensating a trespasser for injuries inflicted by excessive force does not amount to rewarding crime. As Lord Justice Neill noted, the law does not treat trespassers as outlaws. Section 1 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 establishes that an occupier owes a duty even to those unlawfully on the premises, ensuring they are not injured through deliberate or reckless acts.
Revill v Newbery Judgement
In Revill v Newbery [1996], the Court of Appeal dismissed Newbery’s appeal. It upheld the finding of negligence, concluding that he had acted in a way that went beyond reasonable self-defence and the protection of property. The doctrine of ex turpi causa did not provide a complete defence in this context.
However, the reduction in damages due to contributory negligence was maintained. Revill was held partly responsible for his own injuries because he had chosen to engage in criminal activity by attempting to burgle the shed. The final award of damages reflected this shared responsibility.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Revill v Newbery [1996] remains an important authority in English tort law, particularly concerning the duties owed to trespassers and the limits of self-defence in property protection. The Court of Appeal’s decision affirmed that occupiers owe a duty not to cause foreseeable harm even to those unlawfully on their land.
The ruling demonstrates that civil liability for negligence focuses on the reasonableness of conduct, not solely on the legality of the victim’s behaviour. It balances moral blameworthiness with legal responsibility, ensuring that the use of force in defence of property remains proportionate and accountable under law.