header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
06 June 2025 / Edward Hodgson , Andrew Smith
Issue: 8119 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Health , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Dishonesty, coercion & pressure

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
221395
The assisted dying Bill leaves these terms open to interpretation, argue Edward Hodgson & Andrew Smith
  • Discusses the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, specifically the cl 26 safeguard.
  • Examines the scope of this proposed new criminal offence, and concepts of dishonesty, coercion and pressure.
  • Argues that cl 26, as currently drafted, risks criminalising compassionate actions and leaves too much to prosecutorial discretion.

At present, under s 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, a person (D) commits an offence if they do an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide (or attempted suicide) of another. D is only criminally liable if their act was intended to encourage or assist suicide.

Additional and more nebulous criminal offences may soon be added to this most contentious of areas. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is currently making its way through the House of Commons. The Bill would allow adults who are terminally ill to request and be given assistance to end their

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: When post-breach events rewrite damages claims
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
NLJ this week: Supreme Court redraws unfair prejudice rules
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
NLJ this week: ‘Joe Donor’ ruling exposes dangers of unregulated conception
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
NLJ this week: CILEX warns Mazur ruling must spark reform
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Conditional job offers carry hidden risks for employers
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll