It is one thing for the courts to protect citizens from the arbitrary use of prosecutorial discretion resulting in abuse of process; quite another to require prosecutors to spell out the public interest criteria they will apply in relation to particular crimes, not least to particular instances of particular crimes. Circumstances are infinitely variable, especially when a case is hypothetical. Ms Purdy may never be assisted in suicide, by her husband or anyone else. For all we know, she may—like Mrs Pretty—end up dying a natural death in an English hospice. In short, Purdy seems unprecedented, unsound and unconstitutional.
Debbie Purdy has multiple sclerosis and may, at some point, want her husband to help her travel to a jurisdiction where assisted suicide is permitted.
She asked the DPP to identify the factors he takes into account in deciding whether to give his consent to prosecution for the offence of assisting suicide contrary to the Suicide Act 1961 (SA 1961), s 2.
He declined. She sought judicial review. In R (on the application of Purdy)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
