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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
In NLJ this week, Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre marks Pro Bono Week by urging lawyers to recognise the emotional toll of pro bono work
Can a lease legally last only days—or even hours? Professor Mark Pawlowski of the University of Greenwich explores the question in this week's NLJ
RFC Seraing v FIFA, in which the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed that awards by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be reviewed by EU courts on public-policy grounds, is under examination in this week's NLJ by Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law, Zurich
back-to-top-scroll