The assisted dying bill – the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – has once again been introduced to Parliament and has become a topic of significant public and political debate.
The decision of Parliament is going to determine whether a person needs to travel with his/her terminally sick loved one to an assisted dying clinic in other parts of Europe to end his/her life or they can spend their last stage of life together here in their home country.
If assisted dying is no longer illegal, the forfeiture rule discussed below will no longer apply to the case where individuals, who assisted the deceased to die (including making administrative arrangements for the deceased and travelling abroad with the deceased) are barred from acquiring any inheritance from the deceased upon their return.
The law
Pursuant to the Suicide Act 1961 (SA), whilst it is not unlawful to commit suicide, it is a serious offence to encourage/assist the suicide/attempted suicide of another.
Pursuant to the Forfeiture Act 1982, a person who assists/encourages another to attempt/commit suicide forfeits their interest in the deceased’s estate and any jointly owned assets. This is known as the forfeiture rule and it is based on the moral principle that a person cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing. It also gives the Court power to modify the effect of the forfeiture rule should justice require (section 2).
Morris v Morris and others [2024] 4 WLR 84
Background
The Claimant travelled with his terminally sick wife to an assisted dying clinic in Switzerland, where she ended her life. Upon his return to the UK, the police did not take action against him but his action was capable of qualifying as an offence under section 2(1) of the SA. Such a position was accepted by the Claimant himself, and the forfeiture rule would apply to disable him from taking absolute beneficial interest in his wife’s residuary estate under her Will. The Claimant therefore sought modification of the effect of the forfeiture rule against the Defendants who were also beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate. The beneficiaries under the Will consented to the relief sought by the Claimant.
Decision
The Court held that the deceased had made a ‘voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide’ prior to the time at which the Claimant started to take any steps to assist her to do so, and therefore the effect of the forfeiture rule should be modified by excluding its application in full.
In reaching its decision, the Court took into account a wide range of circumstances/factors relevant to the discretion, including but not limited to:
- The public interest;
- The relationship between the offender and the deceased;
- The size of the estate;
- The degree of moral culpability;
- The intentions of the offender and the deceased; and
- The financial position of the offender.
How can we help?
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us