Purdy, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor

Purdy, R (on the application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions & Anor

The DPP is not under a legal duty to publish a specific policy on prosecution for assisted suicide. The prohibition on assisted suicide does not engage Article 8(1) ECHR according to binding House of Lords precedent. Even if Article 8(1) is engaged, the current law and the Code for Crown Prosecutors provide...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Debbie Purdy; Defendant: Director of Public Prosecutions; Intervener: Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Human Rights Claim / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Assisted Suicide, Prosecution Policy, Article 8 ECHR, Judicial Review, Discretion of DPP
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Assisted Suicide Prosecution Policy Article 8 ECHR Judicial Review Discretion of DPP

Source-derived case record

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Debbie Purdy

Claimant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant

Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Human Rights Claim / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the DPP is under a duty to publish specific guidance on prosecution for assisting suicide under s.2(1) Suicide Act 1961
  2. 2 Whether the prohibition on assisted suicide engages Article 8(1) ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the interference, if any, is 'in accordance with the law' under Article 8(2) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The DPP is not under a legal duty to publish a specific policy on prosecution for assisted suicide. The prohibition on assisted suicide does not engage Article 8(1) ECHR according to binding House of Lords precedent. Even if Article 8(1) is engaged, the current law and the Code for Crown Prosecutors provide sufficient clarity and foreseeability to satisfy Article 8(2), and any interference is justified. The claim is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed