header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Dishonesty, coercion & pressure

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
06 June 2025 / Edward Hodgson , Andrew Smith
Issue: 8119 / Categories: Features , Criminal , Health , Human rights
printer mail-detail
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
Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
NLJ this week: Regan’s case of the year
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School and the Frenkel Topping Group—AKA The insider—crowns Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP as his case of 2025 in his latest column for NLJ. The High Court’s decision—that non-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision—has sent shockwaves through the profession. Regan calls it the year’s defining moment for civil practitioners and reproduces a ‘cut-out-and-keep’ summary of key rulings from Mr Justice Sheldon
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll