header-logo header-logo

An end to the suffering

06 August 2009
Issue: 7381 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail
89519164_4

House of Lords closes with landmark ruling on assisted suicide

The law lords have unanimously ruled in favour of Debbie Purdy’s Art 8 rights, in the very last judgment of the House of Lords before it is replaced by the Supreme Court.

Purdy, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, had asked for the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to issue an offense-specific policy on whether or not her husband would be prosecuted if he accompanied her to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland where she hopes to end her life.

The House of Lords overturned the Court of Appeal’s earlier ruling that the DPP was acting lawfully in refusing to do so.

This means the DPP will now set out the circumstances under which someone may be prosecuted for accompanying someone to die abroad. Currently the law says that a person can be imprisoned for up to 14 years for doing so, although no one has been prosecuted.

Purdy’s solicitor, Saimo Chahal, partner at Bindmans, says: “It’s a fantastic victory and all the sweeter for the fact that it is a unanimous decision and the very last judgment of the House of Lords which expands the ambit of Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

"It is important that the DPP should now wake up to the need to publish an offence specific policy in this area. I hope that he will go a long way towards indicating that there are very many factors against prosecution in the public interest in cases involving assistance to a person who is mentally capable, where she or he has a terminal illness or incurable disease and decides to have an assisted suicide in a county where it is legal.”

Corinne Slingo, partner at law firm Beachcroft LLP, says: “The decision comes as no surprise from a purely legal analysis of the DPP’s duties, and interpretation of the Suicide Act 1961.

“The Lords were clear that they do not seek to change the law on assisted suicide, but merely to interpret the law, and thus where uncertainty exists, to recommend how best to achieve clarity.”

 

Issue: 7381 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Hugh James—Phil Edwards

Serious injury teambolstered by high-profile partner hire

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Freeths—Melanie Stancliffe

Firm strengthens employment team with partner hire

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

DAC Beachcroft—Tim Barr

Lawyers’ liability practice strengthened with partner appointment in London

NEWS
Ceri Morgan, knowledge counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP, analyses the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd, which reshapes the law of fiduciary relationships and common law bribery
The boundaries of media access in family law are scrutinised by Nicholas Dobson in NLJ this week
Reflecting on personal experience, Professor Graham Zellick KC, Senior Master of the Bench and former Reader of the Middle Temple, questions the unchecked power of parliamentary privilege
Geoff Dover, managing director at Heirloom Fair Legal, sets out a blueprint for ethical litigation funding in the wake of high-profile law firm collapses
James Grice, head of innovation and AI at Lawfront, explores how artificial intelligence is transforming the legal sector
back-to-top-scroll