Victory in bid to legalise assisted suicides

Debbie Purdy wanted to know if her partner would be prosecuted if he helped her die in Switzerland.

And yesterday, in a historic ruling, five Law Lords said the government must specify when a person might face prosecution.

Following the judgment, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in England said it would unveil new guidelines by September.

To read further analysis of this story, go here

Although Scotland's Lord Advocate is not bound by the Law Lords' decision, a spokesman for the Crown Office said: "We will, of course, be considering carefully what the House of Lords has said."

The issue has been high on the political agenda in Scotland since independent MSP Margo MacDonald, who has Parkinson's disease, began a campaign to legalise assisted suicide

Yesterday's decision is a major victory for Ms Purdy, 46, who has fought a long battle to clarify the law on assisted suicide, which is punishable by 14 years imprisonment, though rarely enforced.

She had sought clarification as to whether her husband would face prosecution if he accompanied her abroad to end her life. The DPP had refused to articulate when a prosecution should take place, a decision initially upheld by the High Court and then the Court of Appeal.

However, the Law Lords, in their final sitting before moving in the autumn to occupy the new British Supreme Court, insisted Ms Purdy was correct and that the DPP, Keir Starmer, QC, should put in writing the factors that he regarded as relevant in deciding whether or not to prosecute.

It is understood he will now draw a distinction in law between a person compassionately assisting a terminally-ill loved one to achieve their own goal to end their life and the malicious encouragement of a vulnerable individual to kill themselves.

Although the consequence of the ruling in Scotland was unclear last night, Liberal Democrat MSP Jeremy Purvis said he would write to the Lord Advocate. "We have a real danger in Scotland of the situation being far worse than in England and Wales," he said. "If the public prosecutor in England and Wales does clarify the situation, we would be in a situation where Scotland would be more confused. That is why I am writing tonight to the Lord Advocate for urgent clarification."

After the Law Lords' ruling, Ms Purdy, who is married to the Cuban violinist Omar Puente, said: "I'm ecstatic. I am eagerly awaiting the DPP's policy publication so that we can make an informed decision to make sure what we do does not risk prosecution. I feel like I have my life back."

Flanked by her husband, wheelchair-bound Ms Purdy, from Bradford, left Westminster to cheers from her supporters.

Speaking outside, she said: "It feels like everything else doesn't matter and now I can just be a normal person. It's terrific. We can live our lives. We don't have to plan my death."

Earlier this month, an amendment to remove the threat of prosecution from those who go abroad to help terminally-ill patients die was defeated by the House of Lords, sitting not as a court but as the second chamber of parliament.

Giving judgment in Ms Purdy's case yesterday, Lord Hope, sitting with Lords Phillips, Brown and Neuberger and Baroness Hale, said it was no part of the Law Lords' function to decriminalise assisted suicide.

No-one who had listened to the recent debate on the amendment proposed by former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer could doubt the strength of feeling on either side or the difficulties that a change in the law might give rise to, he said. But the DPP should be required to set out an "offence-specific policy" identifying the facts and circumstances he would take into account in deciding whether it was in the public interest to prosecute under the Suicide Act.

The ruling came in the same month that the Royal College of Nursing declared it was dropping its opposition to assisted suicide and adopting a neutral stance, while in a recent poll, 74 per cent said doctors should be allowed to help terminally-ill patients end their lives.

As many as 115 people from the UK have gone to the Swiss clinic Dignitas to die, but no-one has been prosecuted so far.

Lord Pannick, QC, for Ms Purdy, who was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1995, had told the Law Lords that, unless the law was clarified, she might be forced to end her life earlier than she planned because her husband would be unable to help her, without risking prosecution, if she became totally dependent.

If the risk of prosecution was sufficiently low, she could wait until the very last minute before travelling with her husband's assistance, he said. If the risk was high, she would have to go earlier while she was still fit enough to travel without assistance.

In a summary of their decision, the Law Lords said: "Everyone has the right to respect for their private life, and the way Ms Purdy determines to spend the closing moments of her life is part of the act of living. Ms Purdy wishes to avoid an undignified and distressing end to her life. She is entitled to ask that this, too, must be respected."

Directing that the DPP should spell out his criteria, they said the current Code for Crown Prosecutors offered almost no guidance on the highly sensitive issues raised by the case. A "custom-built policy statement" was required.

Mr Starmer said work would start immediately to produce a policy for prosecutors setting out reasons why prosecutions should or should not be brought in future. He said: "This is a difficult and sensitive subject and a complex area of the law. We will endeavour to produce an interim policy as quickly as possible."

Lord Falconer, the former Lord Chancellor, who supported an amendment to the law, said that once the DPP had set out clear principles that there would be no prosecutions for compassionate assistance, "then the law has effectively been changed".

However, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: "The government believes that any change to the law in this area is an issue of individual conscience and a matter for parliament to decide rather than government policy."

The judgment has come at a time when public debate about assisted suicide has increased, with growing numbers of British people travelling to Switzerland to use the facilities of the charity Dignitas.

Earlier this month, the double Swiss suicide of renowned conductor Sir Edward Downes, 85, and his wife, Joan, 74, led to an increase in calls for parliament to change the law. However, the deaths of the couple is also the subject of an ongoing police investigation.

The Scottish Council on Human Bioethics said assisted suicide was both unnecessary and dangerous for any society to accept.

Dr Calum MacKellar, its director of research, said: "With appropriate palliative care, physical suffering can be adequately addressed. When dying patients realise that they do not need to suffer, they often change their minds about euthanasia."

Action to end the court sentencing lottery

Q: What is the position in Scotland as regards assisted suicide?

A: It would be for the Lord Advocate, working with a procurator-fiscal, to decide with what an individual would be charged. In previous cases assistants to suicide have been charged with culpable homicide. This leaves the matter of sentencing in the hands of the judge, which has led to unpredictability in sentencing.

In 1980, Robert Hunter, 78, who had ended the life of his senile wife, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment – a sentence which, Lord Cowie said would have been harsher but for his age. At the other end of the spectrum, 1996 saw the admonishment of Paul Brady, despite his plea of guilty to the culpable homicide of his terminally-ill brother.

Q: Why is the issue of assisted suicide so controversial?

A: Suicide is no longer a crime in England and Wales, but aiding and abetting suicide is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

The calls for a change in the law have been marked by high-profile legal bids and a steady stream of publicity about UK citizens who have travelled to Swiss clinic Dignitas to die.

Although a handful of people have been arrested, no relative or friend of the more than 100 UK citizens who have gone to the Dignitas clinics has been prosecuted under the 1961 Suicide Act.

Ms Purdy wanted the policy to be clarified so that people in her situation knew whether or not they would be prosecuted for their actions.

Q: Why did Debby Purdy want the law on assisted suicide clarified?

A: Ms Purdy told the Law Lords that, unless the law was clarified, she might be forced to end her life earlier than she planned because her husband would be unable to help her, without risking prosecution, if she became totally dependent.

If the risk of prosecution was sufficiently low, she could wait until the last minute before travelling with her husband's assistance. If the risk was high, she would have to go earlier while still fit enough to travel without assistance.

Q: What did the Law Lords decide?

A: They called for a "custom-built policy statement" to give guidance to prosecutors on the highly-sensitive issues raised by the case. The Law Lords said Ms Purdy wanted to avoid "an undignified and distressing end to her life" and ruled that she was "entitled to ask that this too must be respected".

Q: What does the decision mean?

A: The judgment will bring reassurance to thousands of people faced with the same dilemma as Ms Purdy.

Q: Have the Law Lords decriminalised assisted suicide?

A: No. They agreed that changes were a matter for parliament, but upheld Ms Purdy's argument that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, should put in writing the factors that he regarded as relevant in deciding whether or not to prosecute.

Q: What happens now?

A: Mr Starmer said prosecutors would start work immediately to produce a policy on assisted suicide.

He said he hopes to have an interim policy for prosecutors by the end of September and that he will then undertake a public consultation exercise in an attempt to publish a finalised policy in the spring of 2010.

In quotes

This historic judgment ensures the law keeps up with changes in society and, crucially, provides a more rational deterrent to abuse than a blanket ban which is never enforced.

Sarah Wootton, Dignity in Dying

It's a very significant judgment. It's not changing the law, but it is carving out an area where no proceedings will be brought in a criminal court.

Former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer

They have declared it is lawful to help a person to commit suicide abroad, but not at home. We would like to know what is the difference, in the intention or the crime

Phyllis Bowman, Right to Life