1. Introduction
Background
1.1 In 2009, Ms Purdy sought information about the factors that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) would take into account in deciding whether or not to grant his consent to a prosecution under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. Ms Purdy contended that the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the DPP under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (the Code) was insufficiently precise to provide her with the information that she sought. The case proceeded through the courts until the highest court in the United Kingdom, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, found in favour of Ms Purdy in R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on 30 July 2009 - now reported at [2009]UKHL45.
1.2 In supporting Ms Purdy's case, the Law Lords required the DPP: "to clarify what his position is as to the factors that he regards as relevant for and against prosecution" (paragraph 55 of the judgment) in cases of assisted suicide. This was a legal ruling with which the DPP was bound to comply, and it is a sensitive area of the law, which provokes sincere and deeply-held views on both sides of the debate.
1.3 As a result, the DPP published his Interim Policy for prosecutors in respect of cases of assisted suicide on 23 September 2009. At the same time, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) launched a consultation exercise inviting members of the public to respond with their views on that policy. The consultation exercise ran for 12 weeks until 16 December 2009.
1.4 Where prosecutors decide whether a person should be charged with a criminal offence, they do so in accordance with the Full Code Test set out in the Code.
1.5 The Full Code Test has two stages: (i) the evidential stage; and (ii) the public interest stage. Normally, the evidential stage must be considered before the public interest stage.
1.6 Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each defendant on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be. Where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.
1.7 A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is sure that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour.
1.8 The Interim Policy on assisted suicide provided further information on the relevant public interest factors involved in this type of case that should be considered by prosecutors in addition to those factors already set out in the Code. These lists of public interest factors are not exhaustive and each case must be considered on its own facts and on its own merits. Neither are the lists of public interest factors in any way a "checklist" which an individual is able to use to arrive at a numerical score. As paragraph 39 of the Final Policy makes clear, assessing the public interest is not simply a matter of adding up the number of factors on each side and seeing which side has the greater number. It is quite possible that one factor alone may outweigh a number of other factors which tend in the opposite direction.
1.9 Neither the Interim Policy nor the Final Policy represents a change in the law. Only Parliament can change the law on encouraging or assisting suicide.
Responses received
1.10 Responses to the consultation exercise were submitted in a variety of ways, including completed questionnaires, e-mails and letters. The information submitted for consideration during the consultation exercise was consequently categorised into the following groupings:
- completed consultation pro-forma questionnaires;
- other correspondence which identified specific factors; and
- other correspondence which contained more general observations.
1.11 A total of 4,710 individuals and organisations from England and Wales submitted a response consisting of:
- 2,459 completed pro-forma questionnaires;
- 1,719 other pieces of correspondence which identified specific factors; and
- 532 other pieces of correspondence which contained more general observations.
1.12 This summary of responses not only sets out a statistical analysis of responses to the questionnaires but also reflects, where appropriate, the entire range of comments - however sent - that the CPS received during the consultation exercise.
1.13 A further 157 responses were received from respondents based in countries outside England and Wales. These responses have not been included in this summary as they are from individuals who, or organisations which, are not automatically subject to the law of England and Wales.
1.14 The DPP is very grateful to all those who took the time to comment on the Interim Policy. The consultation exercise generated the largest number of responses the CPS has ever received about a single topic and the quality of responses has demonstrated the extent of public interest and concern in this highly sensitive area of the law.
Early Day Motion 302
1.15 On 1 December 2009, Early Day Motion (EDM) 302 was laid in the House of Commons. The Motion, which had been signed by 63 MPs as of 17 February 2010, calls for the Interim Policy to be withdrawn on the basis that: it overrides the will of Parliament; indicates to would-be offenders how best to avoid prosecution; and puts the vulnerable at grave risk. The CPS is fully aware of EDM 302 and, although it did not formally form part of the consultation exercise, the CPS has borne it in mind when deciding how best to proceed in drafting the Final Policy.
Key themes and CPS response
1.16 Several key themes emerged during the consultation exercise on the Interim Policy, all of which are outlined below in the question-by-question analysis of responses. These are presented in tables and graphs where appropriate, together with a commentary on the data and the CPS response to each question. In general, a substantial number of respondents indicated a wish to see the CPS prosecute all cases of assisting suicide, although many of these also recognised the role for prosecutorial discretion in exceptional circumstances.
1.17 The CPS response sections set out in this document provide an explanation of the relevant changes between the Interim Policy and the Final Policy. Changes made to the Interim Policy have been based on all the relevant responses received, not only on the responses to the consultation pro-forma questionnaires.
1.18 Since the publication of the Interim Policy, Parliament has amended section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. The changes to the wording of the offence are set out in the Final Policy which is being published at the same time as this Summary of Responses. The offence contrary to section 2 is now encouraging or assisting suicide and this is how the offence is referred to in this document.
1.19 As a result of the statutory amendments, the Final Policy sets out the law both before and after 1 February 2010 when the amendments came into effect. The relevant text is set out in paragraphs 15 to 31 of the Final Policy.
1.20 Further copies of this summary and the Final Policy can be obtained by contacting:
Assisted Suicide Consultation Team
Policy Directorate
Crown Prosecution Service
50 Ludgate Hill
London EC4M 7EX
Copies may also be obtained by e-mail from: hqpolicy@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Next: Responses to Question 1
