5. Question 4: other weighted factors in favour of prosecution
5.1 Question 4 of the consultation document invited those responding to indicate whether there were any additional public interest factors in favour of a prosecution that they wished to see being given greater weight by prosecutors in reaching their decisions, in addition to the proposed list of weighted public interest factors in favour of prosecution outlined in the Interim Policy.
5.2 Overall, there were 1,340 relevant comments in response to this question. They have been divided between those factors which were already in the Interim Policy (1,022) and those which were new factors suggested by respondents (318).
5.3 These responses have been grouped where appropriate and are shown in the tables below, as a percentage of all relevant comments.
Table 4: weighted factors in favour of prosecution - existing factors
| No. in Interim Policy | Weighted factors in favour of prosecution [EXISTING FACTORS] |
Frequency
|
% of all relevant comments (1,340)
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | The suspect was paid to care for the victim in a care/nursing home environment. |
242
|
18%
|
| 11 | 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. |
212
|
16%
|
| 12 | The suspect gave assistance to more than one victim who were not known to each other. |
210
|
16%
|
| 16 | 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. |
176
|
13%
|
| 9 | The victim was physically able to undertake the act that constituted the assistance him or herself. |
70
|
5%
|
| 13 | The suspect was paid by the victim or those close to the victim for their assistance. |
47
|
4%
|
| 1-16 | All factors 1-16 should carry equal weight. |
37
|
3%
|
| 10 | The suspect was not the spouse, partner or a close relative or a close personal friend of the victim. |
17
|
1%
|
| 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. |
11
|
1%
|
| Total |
1,022
|
76%
|
Table 5: weighted factors in favour of prosecution - new factors
| Weighted factors in favour of prosecution [NEW FACTORS] |
Frequency
|
% of all relevant comments (1,340)
|
|---|---|---|
| The suspect was a nurse, doctor or other healthcare professional and the victim was in their care. |
123
|
9%
|
| The suspect had a history of abuse or violence against the victim. |
60
|
4%
|
| The suspect was not a UK resident or citizen. |
36
|
3%
|
| Factors relating to the extent to which the victim had sought treatment or support options. |
14
|
1%
|
| Factors relating to the personal views or state of mind of the suspect. |
14
|
1%
|
| Other factors concerning the relationship between victim and suspect. |
14
|
1%
|
| Other suspect-related factors. |
13
|
1%
|
| The act was deliberately publicised to encourage/influence others. |
11
|
1%
|
| Factors relating to the vulnerability of the victim. |
11
|
1%
|
| Factors relating to the extent of communication from the victim. |
8
|
1%
|
| Other victim-related factors. |
8
|
1%
|
| Factors concerning the manner of assistance. |
5
|
0%
|
| Factors related to the suspect trying to dissuade the victim. |
1
|
0%
|
| Total |
318
|
24%
|
Commentary
5.4 The most widely identified factors from the Interim Policy that were thought worthy of greater weight were: that the suspect was paid to care for the victim in a care/nursing home environment, (18% of all relevant comments); that the suspect gave assistance to more than one victim who were not known to each other (16%); and 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 (16%).
CPS response
5.5 Both the main factors identified by respondents as carrying more weight that were not already in the Interim Policy - namely: that the suspect was a nurse, doctor or other healthcare professional and the victim was in their care; and that the suspect had a history of abuse or violence against the victim - have been included in the Final Policy.
5.6 Following a detailed review of all the responses received during the consultation exercise; after further careful consideration; and in the light of how the CPS has decided to approach the public interest factors against prosecution; the CPS has removed the mechanism of identifying particular factors as automatically carrying greater weight from the Final Policy. The CPS believes that this makes the Final Policy clearer and more accessible, for both prosecutors and members of the public.
Next: Responses to Question 5
