The appellant Mrs Purdy appealed against a decision that found that the absence of a crime-specific policy identifying the facts and circumstances that the Director of Public Prosecutions would consider when deciding whether to prosecute an individual for assisting another person to commit suicide did not render the Suicide Act 1961, s.2(1) unlawful and did not mean that it was not in accordance with law for the purposes of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mrs Purdy, who suffered a debilitating illness, had declared her wish to travel to a country where assisted suicide was lawful to end her life when it became utterly unbearable. She sought information in order to make an informed decision about whether to ask for her husband’s assistance in doing so. The DPP had declined to say what factors, other than the general factors contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, he would take into consideration in deciding whether, under s.2(4) of the Act, it was in the public interest to prosecute those who assisted people to end their lives in countries where assisted suicide was lawful. Mrs Purdy unsuccessfully sought judicial review and her appeal was also rejected. She argued that (1) the prohibition in s.2(1) constituted an interference with her right to respect for her private life under art.8(1); (2) such interference was not “in accordance with the law” as required by art.8(2) in the absence of an offence-specific policy by the DPP which set out the factors that would be taken into account by him and the Crown Prosecutors acting on his behalf in deciding under s.2(4) whether it was in the public interest to bring a prosecution under that section.

The House of Lords allowed the appeal.

Applying the case of Pretty v UK [2002] 2 FLR 45 ECHR, they held that the right to decide when or how to die was not excluded from art.8(1). Article 8(1) was engaged in the instant case. The Court was found not to provide clear guidance as to how the public interest test was to be applied where the offence was aiding or abetting the suicide of a person who was terminally ill or severely and incurably disabled, who wished to be helped to travel to a country where assisted suicide was lawful and who, having the capacity to take such a decision, did so freely and with full understanding of the consequences. The Code thereforedid not satisfy the art.8(2) requirements of accessibility and foreseeability in assessing how prosecutorial discretion was likely to be exercised in s.2(1) cases.

The DPP was required to promulgate an offence-specific policy identifying the facts and circumstances that would be taken into account in deciding whether to consent to a prosecution under s.2(1).