Does someone who assists with journey to Dignitas risk losing benefit of deceased’s estate?

26 February 2019 by

Does someone who assists with journey to Dignitas risk losing benefit of deceased's estate?

Ninan v Findlay and others [2019] EWHC 297 (Ch), 21 February 2019

The claimant, Mrs Ninian, is the sole beneficiary of the residue of the estate of her late husband Mr Ninian under his will. Mr Ninian, who suffered from a progressive incurable disease, died on 16 November 2017 with the assistance of Dignitas in Switzerland. Mrs Ninian was with him throughout the trip to Switzerland, his assessment by representatives of Dignitas and the occasion of his suicide.

Shortly before the trip to Dignitas, Mrs Ninian applied for relief against forfeiture under section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 on the basis that steps taken by her may have amounted to encouraging or assisting her husband to commit suicide which brought in play the forfeiture rule.

An individual is guilty of an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 if they do something capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and that act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide. In R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions  [2010] 1 AC 345  the House of Lords considered that acts which help another person to make a journey to another country, in the knowledge that its purpose is to enable the person to end her own life there, are within the reach of the offence under the Suicide Act.

The “forfeiture rule” is a rule of public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed someone from acquiring a benefit in consequence of that act.

The courts have the power to modify this rule when it is satisfied that the justice of the case requires such modification or exclusion of the rule, for example where the deceased was killed in a car accident.

The question before Chief Master Marsh was whether this was a case of unlawful killing where the circumstances and justice of the case called for exclusion of the forfeiture rule. As Philips LJ observed in a suicide pact case,

When the Act is considered, however, it gives clear indication that the circumstances in which the offence is committed may be such that the public interest does not require the imposition of any penal sanction. This, in my judgment, is the logical conclusion to be drawn form the provision in section 2(4) of the Act that “no proceedings shall be instituted under this section except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions”. Where the public interest requires no penal sanction, it seems to me that strong grounds are likely to exist for relieving the person who has committed the offence from all effect of the forfeiture rule. (Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412)

Chief Master Marsh noted that when the couple attended the Dignitas clinic, no direct assistance in the consumption of the substances that led to Mr Ninian’s death was provided by his wife. However, it was clear that he could not have travelled either to Switzerland or to the three appointments with Dignitas without the assistance she provided.

On her return to the UK, Mrs Ninian instructed solicitors to make contact to the police who interviewed her under caution and provided a report to the CPS. Mrs Ninian was subsequently informed that it was not considered that a prosecution would be in the public interest.

In the circumstances, the court was satisfied that the offence under Section 2 of the Suicide Act had been committed and that therefore the forfeiture rule was engaged by virtue of Mrs Ninian’s acts.

However the Master took into account the following salient facts in this case:

Mr Ninian had reached a voluntary, clear and settled and informed decision to commit suicide;
(ii) Mrs Ninian was wholly motivated by compassion;
(iii) Mrs Ninian had sought to dissuade her husband from committing suicide.
(iv) Mrs Ninian’s actions may be characterised as reluctant assistance in the face of a determined wish on the part of her husband to commit suicide.
(v) Mrs Ninian reported the suicide to the police and fully assisted them in their enquiries into the circumstances of the suicide.

It was “fair to say” that what Mrs Ninan did was to assist her husband,

who was a man with a strong independent will, who had been assessed by an eminent consultant as having capacity, to fulfil his wish to undertake a lawful act. On one view, although not a course of action the court can endorse, she did what many persons would do for a loved one.
… There could be no suggestion that Mrs Ninian was motivated by money in the assistance she provided.

The decision by the CPS not to prosecute Mrs Ninian was “a powerful factor” in the grant of relief against forfeiture. The court therefore exercised its power to grant full relief such that Mr Ninian’s share of jointly owned property and her interest as the beneficiary of the residue of Mr Ninian’s estate, that would otherwise be forfeit, would pass to Mrs Ninian.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: