2. Question 1: factors in favour of prosecution
2.1 Question 1 of the consultation document invited those responding to indicate whether or not they agreed with each factor that was identified in the Interim Policy as a factor in favour of prosecution. Respondents were asked to indicate their views using "Y" for "yes" and "N" for "no"; those who did not wish to let the CPS have their views on any particular factor were asked not to complete the relevant box.
2.2 The views of those who responded to any part of Question 1 are set out in the table below.
Table 1: Y/N responses to factors in favour of prosecution
| No. in Interim Policy | Factors in favour of prosecution | Yes % | No % | No. of responses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | The suspect persuaded, pressured or maliciously encouraged the victim to commit suicide, or exercised improper influence in the victim's decision to do so; and did not take reasonable steps to ensure that any other person did not do so. | 98 | 2 | 2,278 |
| 4 | The victim did not indicate unequivocally to the suspect that he or she wished to commit suicide. | 96 | 4 | 2,270 |
| 7 | The suspect was not wholly motivated by compassion; for example, the suspect was motivated by the prospect that they or a person closely connected to them stood to gain in some way from the death of the victim. | 94 | 6 | 2,244 |
| 5 | The victim did not ask personally on his or her own initiative for the assistance of the suspect. | 94 | 6 | 2,272 |
| 2 | The victim's capacity to reach an informed decision was adversely affected by a recognised mental illness or learning difficulty. | 93 | 7 | 2,261 |
| 1 | The victim was under 18 years of age. | 86 | 14 | 2,265 |
| 3 | The victim did not have a clear, settled and informed wish to commit suicide; for example, the victim's history suggests that his or her wish to commit suicide was temporary or subject to change. | 86 | 14 | 2,106 |
| 15 | The suspect was aware that the victim intended to commit suicide in a public place where it was reasonable to think that members of the public may be present. | 85 | 15 | 2,095 |
| 13 | The suspect was paid by the victim or those close to the victim for their assistance. | 85 | 15 | 2,201 |
| 14 | The suspect was paid to care for the victim in a care/nursing home environment. | 83 | 17 | 2,176 |
| 9 | The victim was physically able to undertake the act that constituted the assistance him or herself. | 81 | 19 | 2,165 |
| 12 | The suspect gave assistance to more than one victim who were not known to each other. | 78 | 22 | 2,190 |
Figure 1: Y/N responses to factors in favour of prosecution
Commentary
2.3 In respect of all public interest factors identified in the Interim Policy as being in favour of prosecution, there was a majority of "yes" responses, indicating there was general agreement that each factor should be taken into consideration as a factor in favour of prosecution.
2.4 Eleven of the 16 factors outlined in Ouestion 1 in favour of prosecution received an agreement rating of over 80%. This agreement rating was also reflected in many of the additional comments made during the consultation exercise on the Interim Policy through other correspondence.
CPS response
2.5 The CPS views the responses to Question 1 as an endorsement of the factors identified in the Interim Policy as being in favour of prosecution under the public interest stage of the Full Code Test. As stated above, eleven of the 16 factors received an agreement rating of over 80%. This left five factors which received less than 80% agreement.
2.6 Factor 12 - that the suspect gave assistance to more than one victim who were not known to each other - received an agreement rating of 78%, and did not attract significant comment in the additional feedback received during the consultation exercise. The CPS is of the view that this factor remains worthy of inclusion in the Final Policy, aimed as it is at preventing the provision of a regularised service of encouraging and assisting suicide by one individual with regard to a number of unconnected victims.
2.7 Factor 11 - that the suspect was unknown to the victim and assisted by providing specific information via, for example, a website or publication, to the victim to assist him or her in committing suicide - received an agreement rating of 77%. The CPS is of the view that this is clearly a factor which should be considered in favour of prosecution. The provision of potentially detailed information on, for example, methods and techniques of suicide to a person or people not known to the provider is far removed from the compassionately-motivated, one-off assistance that may be less likely to require a criminal prosecution in the public interest.
2.8 Factor 16 - that the suspect was a member of an organisation or group, the principal purpose of which is to provide a physical environment [whether for payment or not] in which to allow another to commit suicide - received an agreement rating of 71%. The CPS is of the view that this remains an important factor in favour of prosecution, aimed as it is at making it more likely that an individual involved in any work-related way with an organisation that facilitates suicide will be prosecuted if they provide encouragement or assistance. This also reflects a theme present throughout much of the general correspondence received during the consultation exercise.
2.9 However, in the Final Policy, the CPS has amended the wording of this factor to remove reference to the need for the suspect to be a "member" of the organisation: on reflection, this would have led an individual who was simply a member of such an organisation to be captured by this factor, even where his or her encouragement or assistance was wholly separate from, and not influenced by, his or her membership of the organisation in question. Instead, the factor has been redrafted so that it covers those who are employed by, or involved in the management of, such an organisation. The CPS has also accepted the comments of many who considered that it is sufficient for it to be "a purpose" rather than "the principal purpose" of such an organisation to provide a physical environment in which to allow another to commit suicide.
2.10 Factor 6 - which related to the health and/or disability status of the victim - and factor 10 - which related to the suspect's close personal relationship to the victim - both touched on major themes of comment during the consultation exercise. A large number of respondents questioned the inclusion of these factors, arguing that it may be discriminatory to include factors relating to the health and disability status of the victim (over 1,500 respondents argued this in their general comments), and over 1,600 respondents stated in their general comments that close family relationships in particular are not always supportive and could in some circumstances be manipulative or violent. Almost 1,200 respondents specifically asked for the removal of these factors from the Final Policy in their general comments.
2.11 As a result of these views expressed during the consultation exercise, and upon further consideration, the CPS has removed both factor 6 and factor 10 from the Final Policy.
2.12 With regard to factor 2 - that the victim's capacity to reach an informed decision was adversely affected by a recognised mental illness or learning difficulty - some respondents recommended that the policy should more clearly define what is meant by "capacity" in the context of the policy. They also considered that the principles and approach of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 should be applied when deciding whether the victim had the capacity to decide that he or she wanted assistance to commit suicide.
2.13 Accordingly, paragraph 43(2) of the Final Policy refers to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This ensures that all people whose capacity is affected by any number of reasons, including, for example, a "learning difficulty" or a "mental health" issue, are covered by the policy and that the CPS approach is consistent with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
2.14 The CPS has also considered the substantial number of views expressed about factor 7 - that the suspect was not wholly motivated by compassion; for example, the suspect was motivated by the prospect that they or a person closely connected to them stood to gain in some way from the death of the victim. Some respondents commented on the adoption of the word "compassion", indicating that they considered that the Interim Policy misused it. Others suggested that there may be practical difficulties about the phrase "stood to gain" in so far as there will be many instances where some gain is secured as a result of the death of the victim - for example, be that financially through the operation of a Will or the law of intestacy, or more generally through the freeing up of a carer's time as a result of the death of the victim.
2.15 The CPS has considered these concerns. It believes that a majority of people do understand the word "compassion" in the sense that it is used in the Interim and Final Policy and the word therefore continues to be used.
2.16 To help to put "stood to gain" in context, paragraph 44 of the Final Policy contains an explanation of the expression.
2.17 In the light of more detailed comments received, the CPS has also amended the wording of some of the factors in favour of prosecution to avoid any ambiguity or concern that respondents identified in the original wording of the factors in the Interim Policy, and to reflect the legislative changes in the wording of the offence.
Next: Responses to Question 2
