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

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