Suicide is no longer a criminal offence in Britain, but assisting in someone else’s suicide most certainly is, with the possibility of a draconian sentence.

Complicity in suicide.
(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be [guilty of an offence] …

Enabling Provision: s.2 Suicide Act 1961.
Triable Status: Indictable only.
Max. Sentence on Indictment: 14 years.

(See Criminal Offences Handbook (Anya Publishing) p.229)

All court cases concerning this subject are highly emotive, and the latest is no exception. Debbie Purdy is suffering from multiple sclerosis and facing the dilemma of when to take steps to kill herself or whether to wait until she needs help from her husband and risk his prosecution. According to ‘The Times’ she is considering going to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, if her pain becomes unbearable, although “having to go to another country will be adding to my own grief and distress”. Her husband has said that he would assist her “and if necessary face a prison sentence, but I am not prepared to put him in this position.”

The DPP is making decisions to prosecute anyone who assists with a UK suicide, although no relative of the 100 UK citizens who have gone abroad to Dignitas clinics to die has been prosecuted. There is no written public guidance informing these decisions. Ms Purdy wants UK law clarified, and successfully appealed in June for a judicial review in the High Court on the grounds that the DPP had acted illegally by not providing such guidance. That appeal is now in progress. Her QC, David Pannick, accused the DPP of breaching Ms Purdy’s right to respect for her personal and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to publish a policy making clear the circumstances in which he would, or would not, allow a prosecution to proceed. Lawyers for the DPP said that the clear legal provisions of the Suicide Act 1961 provide sufficient information when coupled with the guidance contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The case continues.

Last month, Justice Minister Maria Eagle made a statement on clarifying the law on assisting suicide to deal with the misuse of the internet, in particular about suicide websites and the influence they may have over vulnerable people, especially young people. The Minister accepted that “the complexity of the law in this area stems from the unusual nature of the offence in section 2 of the Suicide Act which provides accessory liability in respect of something which is not of itself criminal.” She went on to say “we have concluded that the scope of the current law should not be extended but that the existing statutory language of section 2 of the Suicide Act should be simplified and modernised in a way which will make it clearer for everyone to understand.” Legislation to update the Suicide Act in this respect was promised “as soon as Parliamentary time allows.”
So no change in the law, just making it all clearer.

I went to Old Trafford the other day to watch Lancashire play Yorkshire in a pre season friendly (Yorkshire? friendly? – now there’s an oxymoron) and in particular to monitor Andrew Flintoff’s latest rehabilitation.

There I bumped into Max, a solicitor acquaintance of mine. Apart from the cricket, what was on his mind was the very real danger, as he sees it, of the UK adopting a system of plea bargaining very similar to the United States. His immediate cause for alarm is the recent issue of a consultation document by the Attorney General proposing that fraudsters be able to negotiate lower sentences if they admit their crimes. This was one of the key recommendations adopted by the Government in its response to the Fraud Review in March 2007. It argues that the option to negotiate an early plea could mean a reduction in long, expensive fraud trials, less strain to victims and witnesses, caused by delays and potential savings to prosecution and legal aid resources.

The consultation document proposes that prosecutors would be allowed to negotiate a plea agreement with the defence based on the defendant’s level of culpability and possible sentence in return for a guilty plea. The agreement would then be presented to the judge for approval, who could accept or reject it, defer his decision or simply give an indication on maximum sentence.

Lady Scotland was at great pains to point out that this will be plea negotiation, stating that this “is not about mirroring the United States’ system of ‘plea bargaining’. Clearly the US system would not work within our own legal system, but I believe the framework this group has produced could show us exactly how we might achieve early pleas and shorter, less expensive fraud trials”.

Max is not convinced and sees this as the not very thin end of a very large wedge. The arguments about long and expensive trials can also be applied to many criminal and to most terrorism trials. He intends to make his views known. If you wish to do so, or obtain a copy of the consultation document, then go to www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk or contact the Attorney General’s Office at 20 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0NF.

As to the really serious business of the day, unfortunately the Manchester weather had the last say. An untimely and torrential downpour put paid to any prospects of play, leaving us to go home early in what was by then mockingly glorious sunshine.