MS sufferer loses her assisted suicide case

Debbie Purdy, 45 has lost her High Court bid to clarify the law regarding assisted suicide, specifically if her husband would face prosecution if he helped her to commit suicide in Switzerland.

 

By Laura Hawkins

 

E-mail me at l.hawkins@my.westminster.ac.uk

Above: A CNN discussion on the UK assisted suicide debate.

 

Purdy has multiple sclerosis and although she feels well and happy with her life at the moment, she wanted the court to force the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to give his pledge that her husband would not face prosecution if he was to assist her in travelling to a euthanasia clinic in Switzerland at some point in the future.

 

THE LAW – 14 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT

 

Currently, the law states that it is an ‘offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure a suicide or a suicide attempt in England and Wales.’ If you are prosecuted for this offence, you could be punishable to up to 14 years imprisonment.

 

By questioning the law, Purdy was granted judicial review on the matter on the grounds that ‘the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had acted illegally by not providing guidance on how decisions on prosecution are reached’.

 

Purdy argued that due to the lack of clarification, it breached her human rights. The High Court ruled that the guidelines were adequate and did not infringe her human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.

 

Purdy was shocked and upset by the verdict of the High Court and said

‘We still don’t know how we can make sure that we stay within the law because I’m not prepared for Omar to break the law, I’m not prepared for him to risk jail.’

 

SYMPATHY FOR PURDY

 

The High Court did express compassion for the position that Purdy and others are in. Lord Justice Scott Baker portrayed his sympathy and said,

 

‘We cannot leave this case without expressing great sympathy for Ms Purdy, her husband and others in a similar position who wish to know in advance whether they will face prosecution for doing what many would regard as something that the law should permit, namely to help a loved one go abroad to end their suffering when they are unable to do it on their own.’

 

NOT FOR THE COURTS BUT A MATTER FOR PARLIAMENT

 

Lord Justice Scott Baker continued to say that the case would need a change in the law and only Parliament could enact this. However, Purdy was given leave to appeal as the case is one of public interest.

 

Lawyers for the DPP have said that provisions of the 1961 Suicide Act, which make aiding and abetting suicide punishable with a jail term provides sufficient information and that the law does not require a specific policy.

 

SWISS CLINIC DIGNITAS

 

Over 100 British citizens have ended their life at the Swiss clinic ‘Dignitas’ although there has not been one prosecution of relatives that may have assisted their loved ones to travel to Switzerland.

 

Purdy said that she would still consider travelling to the Dignitas clinic in the future but without the help and support of her husband because of the fear of his prosecution, she may need to go earlier than she really wanted to. 

 

WANT MORE INFORMATION? For more background information – CLICK HERE

Tributes paid to the British Aid worker who was shot dead in Kabul

The funeral of ‘joyful and courageous’ Gayle Williams, 34 took place today at the British cemetery for the burial in Kabul. Security was tight as the area was closed off to traffic and manned by a high volume of Afghan police.

 

By Laura Hawkins

 

E-mail me at l.hawkins@my.westminster.ac.uk

 

 

Ms Williams’ mother Pat and her sister Karen joined around 50 expatriates at the funeral where Williams’ colleagues carried her coffin. Flowers and photographs were placed around the coffin in memory of the kind-hearted charity worker. Rose petals were scattered as two guitarists played hymns for the service.

 

TRIBUTES FROM COLLEAGUES

 

A colleague of Ms Williams said, ‘She has a positive perspective on life and through her joyfulness many clouds were lifted.’

 

Another said that ‘she was a joyful and courageous woman. We lost a dear co-worker and we loved her.’

 

‘COWARDLY ACT’

 

According to the BBC, the leader of the ceremony said

 ‘Two armed men gunned down a young, defenceless girl. It is hard to see this as anything other than a cowardly act that brings shame on the people who carried out this murder.’

SHOT DEAD IN KABUL ON MONDAY 20TH OCTOBER

 

Gayle Williams was a ‘Serve Afghanistan’ charity worker where she had worked in the area for 2 ½ years helping the local community. She was managing the opening of a centre for disabled children when she was shot down in the street by two Taliban men.

 

Before the funeral, according to Sky News, Gayle’s sister Karen spoke of her sister’s love for Afghanistan and its people,

‘If Gayle could talk with us now her view would not have changed. Her faith in the Afghan people would remain the same.’ She continued to say ‘I know Gayle would forgive those responsible for this act and would tell us not to hold a grudge against them.’

ACCUSED OF SPREADING CHRISTIANITY

 

The Islamic Taliban have admitted that Ms Williams was shot because she was ‘spreading Christianity’ by working for ‘Serve Afghanistan.’

 

Mike Lyth, the chairman of Serve Afghanistan denied that Williams had been involved in missionary work.

‘We are Christians. That is what gives us the motivation to go into a dangerous and difficult country to try to help. But she was not involved in proselytisation.’

CHARITIES REVIEWING THEIR SECURITY

 

Amongst other aid agencies, ‘Serve Afghanistan’ have said that it has suspended its operations in the country and is reviewing its security.  Rina Van Der Ende spokeswoman of ‘Serve Afghanistan’ said, ‘The team of staff has to come together, have to talk together, the Afghan staff will have to give their opinion, but as far as Serve is concerned, they hope to continue their activity, but the detailed decisions will be made further during the week.’

 

WANT MORE INFORMATION? For more background information – CLICK HERE

Astonishing defeat as the House of Lords rejects 42-day detention without charge

The Government’s highly controversial proposal to extend the time police can hold suspects without charge from 28 days to 42 days has been rejected by the House of Lords.

By Laura Hawkins

E-mail me at l.hawkins@westminster.ac.uk

OVERWHELMING OPPOSITION

The provision will now be dropped from the Counter Terrorism Bill as it was faced with overwhelming opposition of 309 votes to 118 – a majority of 191.

Among those who opposed the proposal was Lord Dear, a former West Midlands chief constable who stated:

 ‘This legislation is fatally flawed, is ill thought through and is unnecessary. Perhaps worst of all, it seeks to further erode the fundamental legal and civil rights that have been the pride of this country for centuries.’

He further added that there was ‘no proven case’ to increase the detention period from 28 days as most suspects had been charged within 14 days. Although The Association of Chief Police Officers voted in favour of the increase, he admitted ‘I have had numerous chief constables telling me privately that they see no reason for the extension and that privately they do not support it.’

CONSEQUENCES OF THE REJECTED PROPOSAL?

Tory former Cabinet minister Lord Tebbit who was injured in an IRA bomb attack in 1984 expressed his concern if the Governement would lose the vote;

‘If the lack of this provision leads to the police to fail to prevent a major terrorist outrage, what then? It might mean multiple fatalities, it might mean a strike against economically important infrastructure, with great consequences. It might mean we fail to prevent an outrage as great as the detonation of a dirty nuclear device in a city centre, leaving it uninhabitable for years.’

The Liberal Democrat Lord Carlile of Berriew expressed the opinion that the proposal would only effect ‘a maximum of five or six people in the next four or five years.’

FREE FROM FEAR OF BEING LOCKED UP WITHOUT CHARGE

However in opposition of the proposal, Labour QC Lady Mallalieu said ‘It surely is an essential ingredient of living in a free country that we are free from the fear of being locked up without charge.’

Labour former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer of Thoroton agreed by stating that ‘If I thought that this provision for 42 days would make any difference at all in the fight against terrorism I would unhesitatingly support it.’

THE COUNTER TERRORISM (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith made an emergency statement stating that the Government would not attempt to force through the defeated proposal but instead would now have an emergency draft bill named ‘The Counter Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill’ which would be called upon in the ‘event of a national emergency.’

If prosecutors need more time to gather information regarding a terrorist case, the Director of Public Prosecutions can apply to the courts to extend to the 42 day detention which will then be decided on a case by case basis. Ms Smith added ‘I deeply regret that some have been prepared to ignore the terrorist threat, for fear of taking a tough but necessary decision.’

WANT MORE INFORMATION? For more background information – CLICK HERE

UK banks receive £37bn bail-out from the UK Government

The British Government has pumped £37bn of taxpayers money into three of the countries largest banks which will change financial services in Britain forever.

By Laura Hawkins

E-mail me at l.hawkins@westminster.ac.uk

The UK’s biggest nationalisation has taken place as Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Lloyds TSB and HBOS have all been bailed out due to the financial crisis that they were in. The result of this means that the Government will get its say on how the banks will run, it could bring an end to easy credit and control the bumper bonuses that are paid out.

BBC business editor Robert Peston said that this day would

‘count as perhaps the most extraordinary day in British banking history.’

UNPRECENDENTED BUT ESSENTIAL FOR US ALL

Gordon Brown explained the government’s actions saying that ‘In extraordinary times, with financial markets ceasing to work, the government cannot just leave people on their own to be buffeted about.’

He added that the investments were assets and that the government did intend on selling them in the future. He insisted that the actions needed to be accompanied by international banking system reforms. He said

‘We must now put in place new structures and new rules for the future. This cannot simply be a short-term rescue to paper over the cracks. Only a surgical approach that gets to the root of the problem will now work to ensure the problems do not return.’

Chancellor Alistair Campbell informed MPs that the injection of the money consisted of ‘essential steps in helping the people and businesses of this country and supporting the economy as a whole.’

CRITICISM OF GOVERNEMENTS ACTIONS

Former Treasury adviser, Professor Tim Congdon, told the BBC that the plan ignored shareholders’ interests, and the City of London’s position in world banking would be ruined. ‘The way the government is going about it, they are effectively stealing from the shareholders. The long-run result will be to destroy the competitiveness of Britain’s most important industries,’ he said.

THE TAXPAYERS SHARE

Sixty percent of RBS will be owned by taxpayers along with 40% of the merged Lloyds TSB and HBOS. It has been added that bonuses of the banks executives will be dramatically decreased or scrapped altogether.

Barclays on the other hand is to raise £6.5bn of new capital but will do so from private investors rather than from the government.

THE END OF EASY CREDIT

Bankers have said that Britain has been dependent on the money markets for too long and this is now over. It results in the end of cheap credit for the public, such as 125% mortgages.

Gerard Lyons, chief economist at Standard Chartered said ‘bankers will now need to behave like they used to behave – with more sensible funding.’

Financial Services Authority chief executive Hector Sants reflection of the change in banking summarises that ‘today signals the end of easy money.’

WANT MORE INFORMATION? For more background information – CLICK HERE