Assisting Suicide and the Discretion to Prosecute: Hard Cases and Good Law?
| Published date | 01 February 2009 |
| Date | 01 February 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2009.73.1.540 |
| Subject Matter | Divisional Court |
Divisional Court
Assisting Suicide and the Discretion to Prosecute: Hard
Cases and Good Law?
R (on the application of Debbie Purdy) v DPP [2008] EWHC 2565
(Admin)
Keywords Assisting suicide; Prosecution, discretion, guidance; Human
rights
The claimant, Debbie Purdy, suffers from multiple sclerosis. She antici-
pates that her condition will worsen to a point at which her continuing
existence will become unbearable. At this point she will want to end her
own life. As she would need help to do this, she would have to travel to
a jurisdiction in which assisted suicide is lawful. She would be unable to
do this without the assistance of her husband who would then be liable
to prosecution under the Suicide Act 1961, s. 2(1) which provides:
A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an
attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on
indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
The Act then goes on to provide that no proceedings shall be instituted
except by or with the consent of the DPP (s. 2(4)).
The claimant and her husband wish to know if he is likely to be
prosecuted under s. 2(1). She brought a claim for judicial review and
under the Human Rights Act 1998, s. 7 to challenge the failure of the
DPP to provide a policy as to the circumstances in which a prosecution
will be brought where the assisted suicide takes place in a jurisdiction in
which it is lawful. It was claimed that this was a breach of the Human
Rights Act 1998, Sched. 1, Article 8, which provides:
(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his
home and his correspondence.
(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise
of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in
a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety, or the
economic wellbeing of the country, for the protection of disorder or crime,
for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.
This raised two questions: does s. 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 engage
Article 8 and, if it does, is the interference ‘in accordance with the
law’?
H
ELD
,
DISMISSING THE APPLICATION
, the Divisional Court was bound
by the decision of the House of Lords in R (on the application of Pretty) v
DPP [2001] UKHL 61 that the right to die does not engage Article 8
and that the DPP has no duty to set out any policy on the exercise
of discretion to prosecute beyond the statutory Code for Crown
Prosecutors.
8The Journal of Criminal Law (2009) 73 JCL 8–11
doi:1350/jcla.2009.73.1.540
To continue reading
Request your trial