When Inheritance and Criminal Law Intersect: Rethinking Queensland’s Forfeiture for Killing Rule

‍At first glance, the principle seems uncontroversial: no one should profit from their own wrongdoing. This idea sits at the heart of the forfeiture for killing rule, a long-standing doctrine of law that prevents a person from inheriting from someone whose death they were responsible for causing. While the moral foundation of the rule is sound, its practical operation, particularly in Queensland, raises complex and often confronting legal questions. At our firm, where we have extensive experience across criminal law, succession law, and complex estate disputes, we regularly see how rigid legal rules can produce outcomes that feel legally correct yet fundamentally unjust. This article explores what the forfeiture for killing rule is, how it currently operates in Queensland, and why carefully structured reform is increasingly necessary.

What Is the Forfeiture for Killing Rule?

In Queensland, the forfeiture for killing rule exists as a common law doctrine, rather than as legislation. Broadly speaking, it provides that a person who is criminally responsible for another’s death is prevented from inheriting any benefit that arises because of that death. The rule is grounded in public policy and centuries of legal authority. Courts have consistently justified its strictness by reference to the principle that a person should not be allowed to benefit from an immoral or unlawful act. This aligns with broader doctrines such as unjust enrichment and the judiciary’s reluctance to assist a claim founded on wrongdoing. Historically, the rule has been described as absolute and inflexible, a characteristic that has been seen as a virtue rather than a flaw. However, modern legal practice increasingly reveals the difficulty of applying a blunt rule to morally complex situations.
‍

‍The challenge in Queensland is not the existence of the forfeiture rule itself, but the absence of legislative structure governing its application. Currently, forfeiture most commonly follows a conviction for murder or manslaughter. However, it may also arise in civil proceedings, even where no criminal charge is laid, if a court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the beneficiary caused the death. Once triggered, Queensland courts have no express authority to consider:

As a result, individuals who never intended to benefit from a death, or whose culpability is significantly reduced, may be treated identically to deliberate offenders. In practice, this can produce outcomes that lack proportionality and undermine confidence in the justice of the succession system.

‍Tension with Broader Succession Principles

Queensland succession law otherwise embraces judicial discretion and evaluative decision-making. Family provision claims, for example, require courts to weigh competing moral claims, assess financial dependency, and balance fairness between beneficiaries. By contrast, the forfeiture rule operates as an automatic exclusion, without room to assess nuance. This inconsistency weakens coherence within succession law as a whole and can lead to outcomes that are legally orthodox but substantively unfair, particularly where innocent children or financially dependent spouses are affected.

A Better Approach: Structured Legislative Reform

Reform does not require abandoning the forfeiture rule. Rather, it requires legislating it. A statutory framework would allow Queensland courts to grant limited and carefully regulated relief in defined circumstances, such as:

Importantly, discretion should not be open-ended. Relevant factors could include intent, degree of culpability, relationship to the deceased, financial dependency, and whether there was any intention to benefit from the death. This preserves the moral force of the rule while ensuring fair and transparent outcomes.

Learning from Other Jurisdictions

New South Wales provides a compelling model. There, the forfeiture rule has been legislatively codified, allowing courts to modify or avoid forfeiture in cases that do not amount to murder, but only where justice requires it.Contrary to assumptions, this has not resulted in leniency. Courts remain cautious, frequently refusing applications and applying the rule with rigorous scrutiny. Flexibility exists, but it is judicially controlled. In some cases, benefits are held on trust rather than forfeited outright, demonstrating principled alternatives that respect public policy while avoiding injustice.

Why This Matters for Clients

For clients facing criminal allegations, estate disputes, or complex family dynamics, the forfeiture rule can have life-altering consequences. Its interaction with criminal law, domestic violence, mental health, and succession planning requires careful, specialist advice. At our firm, we bring together deep experience in criminal law and succession law to navigate these intersections strategically and sensitively. Whether advising on potential forfeiture risks, defending criminal charges with estate implications, or resolving disputed estates, we focus on outcomes that are legally robust and practically just.

Final Thoughts

Queensland’s forfeiture for killing rule reflects an important moral stance that should be preserved. However, without legislative guidance, it operates too rigidly to respond to modern realities. The solution is not to weaken the rule, but to legislate it. A Queensland Forfeiture Act would enhance clarity, fairness, and consistency, while reinforcing; rather than undermining, the public policy that no person should profit from causing another’s death. If you have questions about how criminal proceedings may affect inheritance, or concerns about estate planning in complex family situations, our team is well placed to assist.