R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009]
Share
R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] UKHL 45 concerned the application of the principle of legality in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically Article 8, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. The key principles established in this case are related to the legality and accessibility of laws impacting individual rights, particularly in the context of assisted suicide.
The petitioner, Mrs Purdy, was facing the prospect of her husband helping her travel to Switzerland for physician-assisted suicide, which would be illegal under Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, carrying a potential penalty of 14 years. Section 2(4) of the same Act allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to decide when to bring charges under Section 2(1). Mrs Purdy sought information on the factors the DPP would consider in exercising discretion under Section 2(4), arguing that she had a right under Article 8 of the ECHR to respect for her private and family life.
The House of Lords allowed the appeal, holding that Article 8(2) of the ECHR imposes a duty on the DPP to promulgate a policy on the factors to be considered when deciding whether to prosecute under section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961.
The Court emphasised that any interference with the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8(1) must be in accordance with the law. This requires a legal basis in domestic law, accessibility, precision, and non-arbitrary and proportionate application.
A law or rule conferring discretion is not inconsistent with Article 8(2) if the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity to protect individuals against arbitrary interference.
The Court held that the DPP should promulgate a policy on the factors to be considered when deciding whether to prosecute under section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961. This is crucial for ensuring accessibility and foreseeability in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, especially in unique cases like assisted suicide.
While the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the DPP might provide sufficient guidance in many cases, it was deemed inadequate in dealing with prosecution under Section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961 due to the unique nature of the offence.
The case highlights the importance of clarity and accessibility in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, particularly in cases involving sensitive matters such as assisted suicide. The Court's decision underscores the need for the DPP to provide specific guidance in the form of policies to ensure that individuals are informed about the factors influencing prosecutorial decisions in cases with unique legal aspects. This decision has broader implications for the protection of individual rights under the ECHR, emphasising the necessity of clear and accessible legal frameworks.
The petitioner, Mrs Purdy, was facing the prospect of her husband helping her travel to Switzerland for physician-assisted suicide, which would be illegal under Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, carrying a potential penalty of 14 years. Section 2(4) of the same Act allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to decide when to bring charges under Section 2(1). Mrs Purdy sought information on the factors the DPP would consider in exercising discretion under Section 2(4), arguing that she had a right under Article 8 of the ECHR to respect for her private and family life.
The House of Lords allowed the appeal, holding that Article 8(2) of the ECHR imposes a duty on the DPP to promulgate a policy on the factors to be considered when deciding whether to prosecute under section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961.
The Court emphasised that any interference with the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8(1) must be in accordance with the law. This requires a legal basis in domestic law, accessibility, precision, and non-arbitrary and proportionate application.
A law or rule conferring discretion is not inconsistent with Article 8(2) if the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity to protect individuals against arbitrary interference.
The Court held that the DPP should promulgate a policy on the factors to be considered when deciding whether to prosecute under section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961. This is crucial for ensuring accessibility and foreseeability in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, especially in unique cases like assisted suicide.
While the Code for Crown Prosecutors issued by the DPP might provide sufficient guidance in many cases, it was deemed inadequate in dealing with prosecution under Section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961 due to the unique nature of the offence.
The case highlights the importance of clarity and accessibility in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, particularly in cases involving sensitive matters such as assisted suicide. The Court's decision underscores the need for the DPP to provide specific guidance in the form of policies to ensure that individuals are informed about the factors influencing prosecutorial decisions in cases with unique legal aspects. This decision has broader implications for the protection of individual rights under the ECHR, emphasising the necessity of clear and accessible legal frameworks.