- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Purdy, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant suffers from progressive multiple sclerosis. Anticipating a stage where she will be physically unable to end her own life, she wishes to travel to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is lawful, and be helped by her husband (“Appellant’s Spouse”). Assisting suicide is a criminal offence in England and Wales under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 (“the 1961 Act”), and any prosecution requires the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (“Respondent”) under section 2(4). Fearing that her spouse might be prosecuted on return to the jurisdiction, the Appellant sought a judicial review compelling the Respondent to publish a clear, offence-specific policy indicating when prosecutions under section 2(1) would, or would not, be brought. The lower courts refused relief; the present appeal was to the final appellate tribunal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether acts performed in England and Wales that assist another person to commit suicide abroad fall within section 2(1) of the 1961 Act.
- Whether the absence of an offence-specific prosecution policy renders the interference with the Appellant’s Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) rights not “in accordance with the law.”
- Whether Article 8 is engaged in circumstances where a competent, terminally ill person wishes assistance to arrange an overseas suicide.
- Whether the Respondent is obliged to publish a policy identifying factors for and against prosecution in cases of compassionate assistance to commit suicide abroad.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Section 2(1) constitutes an interference with her Article 8 right to personal autonomy; that interference is not “in accordance with the law” because potential assistants cannot foresee prosecution risk.
- The general Code for Crown Prosecutors (“the Code”) is too generic; previous decisions (e.g. the Daniel James case) show many Code factors are irrelevant to assisted-suicide matters.
- A published, offence-specific policy is required to satisfy the ECHR requirements of accessibility, foreseeability and non-arbitrariness.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Code, supplemented by the published reasons in the Daniel James decision and by referral of all such files to the Special Crimes Division, provides adequate guidance.
- Issuing further policy could inhibit prosecutorial discretion and raise ethical concerns around vulnerable persons.
- Article 8 is either not engaged or, if engaged, the present framework is sufficient to render any interference “in accordance with the law” and proportionate.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rex v Dyson (1823) | Common-law treatment of assisting suicide as murder when present at the act. | Historical background showing criminality of assistance before 1961. |
| R v Croft [1944] KB 295 | Murder classification for surviving party to a suicide pact. | Illustrates pre-1961 legal position. |
| R v Russell (1832) | Accessory before the fact rule requiring conviction of principal first. | Explains difficulty of prosecuting remote assistance pre-1861. |
| Accessories and Abettors Act 1861, s.1 cases | Allowed prosecution of accessories as principals. | Shows legislative evolution before the 1961 Act. |
| Cox v Army Council [1963] AC 48 | Territoriality: offences not usually extra-territorial. | Sets default rule the court contrasts with murder exception. |
| Treacy v DPP [1971] AC 537 | Parliament may criminalise acts in England even if consequences occur abroad. | Supports view that s.2(1) can bite on assistance given here. |
| R v Burgess (1862) | Attempted suicide not equated with attempted murder. | Cited as possible limit on treating foreign suicide as murder. |
| R v Harden [1963] 1 QB 8 | “Last act” (terminatory) territorial theory. | Discussed in evaluating competing jurisdictional theories. |
| R v Doot [1973] AC 807 | Flexibility on territorial jurisdiction for conspiracies. | Used to justify broader jurisdictional reading of s.2(1). |
| Libman v The Queen (1985) 21 DLR (4th) 174 | Review of English cases on territoriality. | Relied on for comparative survey. |
| Liangsiriprasert v USA [1991] 1 AC 225 | Endorsed Libman analysis. | Supports mixed territorial approach. |
| Clements v HM Advocate 1991 SLT 388 | Scottish example of assuming jurisdiction where drugs supplied elsewhere. | Analogous to assistance to suicide abroad. |
| R v Smith (Wallace Duncan) [1996] 2 Cr App R 1 | Substantial activities test for jurisdiction. | Part of evolving flexibility favouring prosecution. |
| R v Manning [1999] QB 980 | Preferred terminatory test (later doubted). | Court notes conflict resolved in favour of flexibility. |
| R v Smith (No 4) [2004] QB 1418 | Adopted “substantial part” test; resolved Harden/Manning conflict. | Key precedent for current flexible approach. |
| Pretty v DPP [2001] UKHL 61 | House previously held Art 8 not engaged. | Court expressly departs from it. |
| Pretty v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 1 | ECtHR: Art 8 engaged by assisted-suicide ban. | Adopted as correct interpretation. |
| Sunday Times v UK (1979) 2 EHRR 245 | “In accordance with the law” test. | Forms part of legality framework. |
| Winterwerp v Netherlands (1979) 2 EHRR 387 | Legality requirements under ECHR. | Cited for accessibility/foreseeability criteria. |
| Engel v Netherlands (1976) 1 EHRR 647 | Qualitative “law” requirements. | Referenced in legality analysis. |
| Silver v UK (1983) 5 EHRR 347 | Clarity of discretionary powers. | Part of legality jurisprudence. |
| Hasan & Chaush v Bulgaria (2002) 34 EHRR 55 | Discretion must not be unfettered. | Supports need for published policy. |
| Kafkaris v Cyprus (2008) 25 BHRC 591 | “Law” includes unwritten rules; qualitative test. | Applied to assess sufficiency of guidance. |
| Goodwin v UK (1996) 22 EHRR 123 | Scope of discretion must be clear. | Reinforces need for foreseeability. |
| Liberty v UK (2009) 48 EHRR 1 | Accessibility/foreseeability reaffirmed. | Cited in legality analysis. |
| Sorvisto v Finland [2009] ECHR 59 | Foreseeability of criminal liability. | Used to illustrate legality standard. |
| Rodriguez v Canada [1994] 2 LRC 136 | Canadian Charter right to personal autonomy. | Contrasted with earlier domestic approach in Pretty. |
| Lewis v Attorney General of Jamaica [2001] 2 AC 50 | Caution against overruling precedent too readily. | Considered when departing from domestic Pretty decision. |
| Ullah v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26 | Duty to follow Strasbourg jurisprudence. | Ground for adopting Pretty v UK. |
| Kay v Lambeth LBC [2006] UKHL 10 | Domestic courts bound by own precedent until House/ECtHR decides otherwise. | Explains Court of Appeal’s earlier restraint. |
| R (RJM) v Secretary of State [2008] UKHL 63 | Authority on following higher precedent. | Referred for procedural background. |
| Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412 | Purpose of DPP consent provision. | Cited to show Parliament expected selective prosecutions. |
| Smedleys Ltd v Breed [1974] AC 839 | Attorney General’s discretion to prosecute. | Explains role of public-interest test. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Article 8 Engagement. Overruling its own earlier decision in Pretty v DPP, the court adopted the Strasbourg ruling in Pretty v UK that personal autonomy includes the manner of one’s death; therefore the Appellant’s private-life rights are engaged.
2. Legality of Interference. For an interference to be “in accordance with the law” it must be accessible, foreseeable, and non-arbitrary. While section 2(1) is clear, the operative discretion lies in section 2(4): prosecution requires the Respondent’s consent. The generic Code provides almost no relevant guidance; in the Daniel James decision the Respondent himself acknowledged most Code factors were inapplicable, demonstrating unpredictability.
3. Necessity for Specific Policy. Citing Hasan & Chaush and related jurisprudence, the court held that a broad, unfocused discretion in matters affecting fundamental rights is incompatible with the Convention. A narrow, offence-specific policy would remedy arbitrariness while leaving ordinary cases under the generic Code.
4. Territorial Scope of Section 2(1). Judges debated (but did not finally decide) whether assisting suicide abroad falls within section 2(1). The majority considered that, at minimum, there is a “substantial risk” of liability; that uncertainty itself heightens the need for prosecutorial clarity.
5. Separation of Powers. Changing or repealing the criminal offence is for Parliament, not the judiciary. The court restricted itself to ensuring prosecutorial discretion complies with Article 8.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED. The Respondent is ordered to promulgate an offence-specific policy identifying the public-interest factors that will be considered when deciding whether to consent to a prosecution under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 in cases analogous to the Appellant’s.
Implications: The decision does not decriminalise assisted suicide, nor does it immunise potential assistants. It obliges the prosecuting authority to publish clear criteria, enhancing legal certainty and compliance with the ECHR. No new substantive precedent on territorial reach was set, but prosecutors must now articulate factors for and against prosecution in compassionate-assistance scenarios.
Alert