7. Question 6: new factors identified against prosecution
7.1 Question 6 of the consultation document invited those responding to indicate whether there were any additional public interest factors against a prosecution that they wished to see included in the Final Policy, in addition to the proposed list of factors outlined in the Interim Policy. There were 265 relevant comments in response to this question.
7.2 These responses have been grouped where appropriate and are shown in the table below.
Table 7: new factors identified against prosecution
| New factors identified against prosecution |
Frequency
|
% of all relevant comments
|
|---|---|---|
| The suspect did not stand to gain any advantage, financial or otherwise, by the death of the victim. |
67
|
25%
|
| Factors relating to the vulnerability of the suspect. |
37
|
14%
|
| There was written documentation outlining the victim's request and intentions to commit suicide; for example, there was a Living Will. |
35
|
13%
|
| Other suspect-related factors. |
29
|
11%
|
| Factors relating to the manner of assistance. |
26
|
10%
|
| Notification to a healthcare professional, or another, of the victims intentions in advance. |
22
|
8%
|
| The suspect was a member of the medical profession. |
22
|
8%
|
| Factors relating to the personal views, situation and/or actions of the victim. |
22
|
8%
|
| Other factors. |
5
|
2%
|
| Total |
265
|
100%
|
Commentary
7.3 There were comparatively few relevant comments in answer to this question. The main new factors identified as being against a prosecution included: that the suspect did not stand to gain any advantage, financial or otherwise, from the death of the victim (25% of all relevant comments); and that there was written documentation outlining the victim's request and intentions to commit suicide, such as, for example, a Living Will (13%).
CPS response
7.4 The CPS has given due consideration to each of the responses received to this question. The CPS believes that the underlying principle of the proposed new factor against a prosecution identified in the consultation exercise - that the suspect did not stand to gain any advantage, financial or otherwise, from the death of the victim - is adequately covered by factor 6 in the Final Policy in favour of a prosecution, which states that: "[t]he suspect was not wholly motivated by compassion; for example, the suspect was motivated by the prospect that he or she or a person closely connected to him or her stood to gain in some way from the death of the victim.".
7.5 The CPS considers that, whilst the absence of such a motivation for gain is not a factor tending against prosecution in its own right, such a motivation is properly a factor to take into account tending in favour of prosecution. This factor has not, therefore, been included in the Final Policy.
7.6 With regard to those other major factors that respondents identified, such as the presence of a Living Will, the view of the CPS is clear. Only Parliament can set out what processes or procedures might be appropriate in the context of encouraging or assisting suicide that may lead to an automatic decision not to prosecute. Any requirement for there to be a Living Will or for a Doctor to confirm that the victim was terminally ill (which was another factor identified by some as a factor against prosecution), for example, is clearly within the scope of processes and procedures that, in effect, create a regime for encouraging or assisting suicide. Only Parliament can determine the legality of such a regime - not the DPP - and accordingly, the CPS has firmly rejected any factor against prosecution that could be said to be a stepping stone towards the creation of such a regime.
7.7 The CPS has taken the view that, although many of the other suggested new factors were of interest and worthy of consideration, it would not be appropriate to include them in the Final Policy.
Next: Responses to Question 7
