It is not unlawful under English law to commit suicide.

However, the current position is that assisting or encouraging suicide remains a criminal offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961(“the Act”) albeit whether a criminal prosecution under the Act takes place requires the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Terminally Ill Adult (End of Life) Bill seeks to legalise assisted suicide for terminally ill adults in certain circumstances. Having recently passed its second reading in the House of Commons by 314 votes to 291 the bill has now proceeded to the House of Lords where it has undergone its first reading and it is currently awaiting its second reading.

Whether a criminal prosecution takes place or not the consequences, however, of assisting suicide do not stop at the doors of the criminal courts.

Assisting suicide can give rise to civil consequences and one area where the consequences can sound is under the “forfeiture rule”. 

The Forfeiture Rule

The forfeiture rule can be found under section 1 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 and is defined as being a rule of public policy whereby if a person, in certain circumstances, is found to have unlawfully aided, abetted, counselled or procured the death of another, that person should be precluded from benefitting as a consequence of the killing.

In other words, it is a principle that can prevent individuals who have unlawfully killed another from inheriting their victims estate.

Traditionally this rule has been applied in cases of murder and in these circumstances it may be understandable to see why. But what if a person assists another in ending their life. In these circumstances should that person be allowed to inherit from the deceased’s estate?

The answer may seem clear-cut and you could be forgiven for thinking that in the eyes of the law the answer is no. After all, it is a criminal offence under the Act to assist or encourage someone to end their life, so, surely, it must follow given the wording of the Forfeiture Act that the same person is precluded from benefiting from the death.

This is not necessarily the case.

Under section 2 of the Forfeiture Act the Court can, at its discretion, make an order modifying the effect of the forfeiture rule. The Court can do so in circumstances where it is satisfied that, having regard to the conduct of the offender and the deceased and to such other ‘material’ circumstances, it considers it just to do so.

For example, in the case of Morris v Morris, Philip Morris accompanied his wife, Myra, who was suffering from an incurable degenerative condition to a clinic in Switzerland so that she could end her life. The Court considered whether, in these circumstances, Philip would forfeit his inheritance.

The Court ultimately ruled in his favour and disapplied the forfeiture rule. In finding that Philip had made a compelling case for relief, in reaching its decision the Court took account of the fact that it was clear Philip had not encouraged Myra to end her life and his motivations were driven entirely out of compassion. In fact, Philip had tried to dissuade Myra.

More recently, in Re Peace, Grant v Murphy the deceased had left a will naming several people as beneficiaries and, at least one, arranged the journey abroad. In an interesting development all the beneficiaries agreed that no one who had assisted the deceased should be treated as having forfeited their entitlement and approval was sought from the Court. In June of this year the Court upheld the consensus reached.

The Future

Assisted dying is, and will no doubt continue to be, an issue that divides society with proponents of the right to die arguing for individual autonomy compared with its critics who raise concerns about the sanctity of life and the potential for abuse.

The Assisted Dying Bill is not yet law and currently it will only apply to those who are terminally ill with six or less months to live.

For those who fall outside the scope of the Bill the decision in Peace is certainly an interesting development, however, it should still be approached with a note of caution and not treated as a ‘one size fits all’ case. It may not always be possible to reach consensus (for example, where minors are involved) and as this is an area of law that is still undeveloped it may still be necessary to seek judicial intervention.

How we can help

We recognise that assisted dying is a deeply sensitive issue and for those who find themselves in this situation there are a number of issues to consider.  

At Colman Coyle, we recognise these issues need to be treated with care and sensitivity and we can assist you in navigating these issues. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the issues raised in this article then please contact Adam Palmer or Patrick Green of our Private Client Team who would be happy to discuss.

This article has been written as a general guide only and should not be treated as a substitute for seeking legal advice on your own specific circumstances.