header-logo header-logo

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

An end to the suffering

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

NLJ Career Profile: Nick Vernon, Walkers Bermuda

Nick Vernon of Walkers on swapping Birmingham for Bermuda and building an employment practice by the sea

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Bird & Bird—Christian Bartsch

Global firm re-elects CEO for second term

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Fletchers Group—Miriam Hall

Business appoints managing director of operational excellence

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll