Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System

The final version of the DPP’s prosecution guidance in assisted suicide cases was published in February. There was a huge public response to the interim policy. (See September 2009 of this blog). The new guidance sets out in some detail the factors to be balanced in individual cases. The focus is very much on protection of the person who has committed suicide.

The sixteen public interest factors in favour of prosecution are:

• The victim was under 18 years of age.
• The victim did not have the capacity (as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005) to reach an informed decision to commit suicide.
• The victim had not reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide.
• The victim had not clearly and unequivocally communicated his or her decision to commit suicide to the suspect.
• The victim did not seek the encouragement or assistance of the suspect personally or on his or her own initiative.
• The suspect was not wholly motivated by compassion; for example, the suspect was motivated by the prospect that he or she or a person closely connected to him or her stood to gain in some way from the death of the victim.
• The suspect pressured the victim to commit suicide.
• The suspect did not take reasonable steps to ensure that any other person had not pressured the victim to commit suicide.
• The suspect had a history of violence or abuse against the victim.
• The victim was physically able to undertake the act that constituted the assistance himself or herself.
• The suspect was unknown to the victim and encouraged or assisted the victim to commit or attempt to commit suicide by providing specific information via, for example, a website or publication.
• The suspect gave encouragement or assistance to more than one victim who were not known to each other.
• The suspect was paid by the victim or those close to the victim for his or her encouragement or assistance.
• The suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a medical doctor, nurse, other healthcare professional, a professional carer (whether for payment or not), or as a person in authority, such as a prison officer, and the victim was in his or her care.
• The suspect was aware that the victim intended to commit suicide in a public place where it was reasonable to think that members of the public may be present.
• The suspect was acting in his or her capacity as a person involved in the management or as an employee (whether for payment or not) of an organisation or group, a purpose of which is to provide a physical environment (whether for payment or not) in which to allow another to commit suicide.

The six public interest factors against prosecution are:

• The victim had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide.
• The suspect was wholly motivated by compassion.
• The actions of the suspect, although sufficient to come within the definition of the crime, were of only minor encouragement or assistance.
• The suspect had sought to dissuade the victim from taking the course of action which resulted in his or her suicide.
• The actions of the suspect may be characterised as reluctant encouragement or assistance in the face of a determined wish on the part of the victim to commit suicide.
• The suspect reported the victim’s suicide to the police and fully assisted them in their enquiries into the circumstances of the suicide or the attempt and his or her part in providing encouragement or assistance.

Do you think this achieves a sensible balance between the interests of suspects and victims?

The Criminal  Procedure Rules Committee (mentioned in Chapter 5) has revised and consolidated the Criminal Procedure Rules. The new edition came into force in April 2010.

A new website http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease100310b.htm gives a link to a mock trial where you can see what thought needs to go into the sentencing process. Give it a try and let me know what you think?

The Government has just launched a consultation on whether the upper age limit for jurors (currently 70) should be raised. It is argued that with people living longer and more healthy lives this might be something older people would like to do. I must say this seems a good idea to me. To have your say go to http://consultations.cjsonline.gov.uk/Default.aspx?conid=2 where you can submit your view direct, on line. The Consultation runs till mid June 2010

The death of people who are in the custody of the state always raises questions about how they were being treated, and whether more could have been done to prevent the death. A Ministerial group used to consider cases of suicide by those in custody but these arrangements were the subject of criticism in 2008. In later 2008, a new Ministerial Council on deaths in custody was established. It is advised by an Independent Advisory Panel (IAP) on Deaths in Custody. Chaired by Lord Toby Harris, the IAP will help to shape government policy in  this  area through the provision of independent advice and expertise to the  Ministerial Board on Deaths in Custody.  The remit of the Council covers deaths, which occur in prisons, in or following police custody, immigration detention, the deaths of residents of approved premises and the deaths of those detained under the Mental Health Act (MHA) in hospital. The principles and lessons learned as part of this work will also apply to the deaths of those detained under the Mental Capacity Act in hospital.

This is not a part of the justice system that is widely known about or understood. The IAP has recently launched a new website which makes available to a wider audience reports and other information about policy and practice in this important aspect of the way detainees are treated in custody. For further information, see http://iapdeathsincustody.independent.gov.uk/

One of the notable changes to the criminal justice system over the last 15 years has been the increasing attention  given to supporting the victims of crime. On 29 Sept 2009, the Government  announced increased funding to Victim Support – the charity that provides the bulk of victim support services – to enable them to give detailed personal support to the families of victims of murder and manslaughter. It is estimated that each year there are around 3000 people directly affected by the murder or manslaughter of a family member.

See http://www.victimsupport.org.uk/

Chapter 5 of the book discusses, among other topics, the discretion to prosecute. It sets out an extract from the Code for Crown Prosecutors on the issue.

There has been considerable public debate in recent months about how the policy of prosecution should apply in cases of assisted suicide. How will a person who assisted a terminally ill patient to die be treated? Will they be prosecuted or not?

Following comments made by judges in the House of Lords in the Debbie Purdy case, the DPP has sought to clarify the guidelines prosecutors should use when deciding whether or not it would be in the public interest to bring a prosecution against someone who has assisted a person to die. He has published interim guidelines which set out the factors that might result in a prosecution being launched, and those that might lead to a decision not to prosecute. The interim guidance does not  alter the law as set down in the Suicide Act 1961.

The public is invited to comment on the guidelines. The DPP plans to issue final, revised, guidelines in Spring 2010. The current text is at http://www.cps.gov.uk/consultations/as_index.html