R (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009]

Court: House of Lords

Facts: Mrs. Purdy was contemplating physician-assisted suicide and faced the possibility of her husband aiding her in traveling to Switzerland for this purpose. Such assistance would be illegal under Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, which carried a potential penalty of 14 years. Section 2(4) allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to exercise discretion regarding prosecutions under Section 2(1). Mrs. Purdy sought clarity on the factors the DPP would consider when exercising this discretion, arguing that her Article 8 right under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to respect for private and family life was infringed.

Issue: Did the DPP have a duty to provide guidance on the factors influencing the decision to prosecute under Section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961 in light of Mrs. Purdy's Article 8 rights?

Held: The House of Lords allowed Mrs. Purdy’s appeal, determining that Article 8(2) of the ECHR imposed a duty on the DPP to create and publish a policy regarding the factors considered when deciding whether to prosecute under Section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961.

Key Judicial Statements: Lord Hope of Craighead articulated the principle of legality under Article 8(2): “The requirement of article 8(2) that there should be no interference with the right under article 8(1) except such as was in accordance with the law required the court to consider:

1. whether there was a legal basis in domestic law for any such interference,

2. whether the law or rule in question is sufficiently accessible to the individual who is affected by the restriction, and sufficiently precise to enable him to understand its scope and foresee the consequences of his actions so that he can regulate his conduct without breaking the law, and

3. whether the law or rule was being applied in a way which was arbitrary or disproportionate.”
   He further noted: “A law which confers a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with this requirement, provided the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity to give the individual protection against interference which is arbitrary.”

💡 Leveluplaw: underscores the necessity for clarity and accessibility in the legal framework governing prosecutorial discretion, especially in sensitive cases like assisted suicide. The House of Lords emphasized that Article 8 ECHR imposes a duty on the DPP to provide specific policies outlining the factors influencing prosecutorial decisions. This ruling not only affirms individual rights under the ECHR but also highlights the importance of ensuring that laws are accessible and precise, allowing individuals to understand their rights and obligations. Consequently, the case sets a precedent for the need for transparency in prosecutorial processes that affect personal rights and liberties.