Kenward & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor

Kenward & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor

The October 2014 amendment to the DPP's policy was a lawful clarification of the intended meaning, not a substantive change, and did not require further consultation or intervention by the Attorney General. The content of the policy is for the DPP to determine, and the amendment did not render the policy unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: Nicola Kenward; Claimant: Mervin Kenward; 1st Defendant: Director of Public Prosecutions; 2nd Defendant: Her Majesty’s Attorney General for England and Wales; Intervener: AM
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Assisted Suicide, Prosecutorial Discretion, Judicial Review, Article 8 ECHR, Policy Clarification
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Assisted Suicide Prosecutorial Discretion Judicial Review Article 8 ECHR Policy Clarification

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicola Kenward

Claimant

Mervin Kenward

Claimant

Director of Public Prosecutions

1st Defendant

Her Majesty’s Attorney General for England and Wales

2nd Defendant

AM

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the October 2014 amendment to the DPP's Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the DPP was required to consult further before amending the policy
  3. 3 Whether the DPP or Attorney General breached any statutory or protocol-based duty in the amendment process

Ratio Decidendi

The October 2014 amendment to the DPP's policy was a lawful clarification of the intended meaning, not a substantive change, and did not require further consultation or intervention by the Attorney General. The content of the policy is for the DPP to determine, and the amendment did not render the policy unlawful.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed