The claimants challenged the policy issued by the DPP on assisted suicide following the Nicklinson case.
Held: The request for judicial review was refused.
Sir Brian Leveson P said: ‘It is important not to misunderstand the effect either of the policy or the impact of the amendment to the policy introduced by the DPP. The policy does not remove bright lines where previously they existed and no assistance or encouragement is rendered lawful that previously was unlawful. The gradation between circumstances in which it is appropriate to prosecute and those in which it is not, will always involve a very detailed consideration of all the facts and, ultimately, a balanced judgement: it is for that reason that I set out all the factors set out in the policy that fall to be considered. Neither does the policy impact on the view which professional regulatory bodies are entitled to take about the obligations and responsibilities of those whom they regulate: the criminal law identifies minimum standards of behaviour and professional requirements may well be set at a higher level. Thus, although I recognise that Mr and Mrs Kenward hold very strong views, I do not accept that this policy provides support for the proposition that those views will not be respected by all with whom they come into contact.’
Sir Brian Leveson P BD, Wilkie, Cranston JJ
 EWHC 3508 (Admin)
Suicide Act 1961, Coroners and Justice Act 2009
England and Wales
Cited – Nicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) SC 25-Jun-2014
The court was asked: ‘whether the present state of the law of England and Wales relating to assisting suicide infringes the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the code published by the Director of Public Prosecutions relating to . .
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Nov-2001
The applicant was terminally ill, and entirely dependent upon her husband for care. She foresaw a time when she would wish to take her own life, but would not be able to do so without the active assistance of her husband. She sought a proleptic . .
Cited – Pretty v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2002
The applicant was paralysed and suffered a degenerative condition. She wanted her husband to be allowed to assist her suicide by accompanying her to Switzerland. English law would not excuse such behaviour. She argued that the right to die is not . .
Cited – Hasan and Chaush v Bulgaria ECHR 26-Oct-2000
The Grand Chamber considered executive interference in the appointment of the Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims: ‘Where the organisation of the religious community is at issue, Article 9 must be interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the . .
Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 30-Jul-2009
Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence
The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. She would need her husband to accompany her, and sought an order requiring the respondent to provide clear guidelines on the . .
Cited – Nicklinson and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v A Primary Care Trust CA 31-Jul-2013
The claimant had suffered a severe form of locked-in syndrome, and would wish to die. He sought a declaration that someone who assisted him in his siuicide would not be prosecuted for murder.
Held: The position in law that voluntary euthanasia . .
Cited – Plantagenet Alliance Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others QBD 23-May-2014
The parties disputed the final resting place of the newly discovered body of King Richard III. The claimants argued for the burial to be in York, and said that the respondents had failed to consult adequately.
The court set out the principles . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 March 2021; Ref: scu.556470