Assisting Suicide and the Discretion to Prosecute Revisited
| Date | 01 December 2009 |
| Published date | 01 December 2009 |
| Author | Dave Powell |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.2009.73.6.601 |
| Subject Matter | House of Lords |
House of Lords
Assisting Suicide and the Discretion to Prosecute
Revisited
R (on the application of Purdy) vDPP [2009] UKHL 45
Keywords Assisting suicide; Prosecution, discretion, guidance; Human
rights
Debbie Purdy suffers from multiple sclerosis. She anticipates 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. She
would need help to do this as 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 that:
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 1961 Act then goes on to provide, by s. 2(4), that no proceedings
shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP).
The claimant and her husband wished 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 prevention 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 the Suicide Act 1961, s. 2(1), engage
Article 8 and, if it does, is the interference ‘in accordance with the law
and is necessary in a democratic society’?
The High Court, R (on the application of Debbie Purdy) vDPP [2008]
EWHC 2565 (Admin), dismissed the application (see ‘Assisting Suicide
and the Discretion to Prosecute: Hard Cases and Good Law?’ (2009) 73
JCL 8), as did the Court of Appeal, R (on the application of Debbie Purdy) v
DPP [2009] EWCA Civ 92. Ms Purdy appealed to the House of Lords.
H
ELD
,
ALLOWING THE APPEAL
, the House accepted that its decision in
R (on the application of Pretty) vDPP [2001] UKHL 61 that the right to die
475The Journal of Criminal Law (2009) 73 JCL 475–479
doi:10.1350/jcla.2009.73.6.601
To continue reading
Request your trial