The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill may have failed for now, but the narrow scope of the Bill meant that it did not address some of the wider legal issues in assisted dying.

Listen to this article

Imagine being told by your husband or wife that they have made the decision to go to Dignitas to end their life. Whatever the reason, and whether or not they are suffering from a terminal illness, you then need to decide whether you accompany them on their final journey.

No matter where people stand on the assisted dying debate, most would agree that someone facing that awful prospect should not have to additionally factor in the potential risk of criminal prosecution, and forfeiting any entitlement to their loved one’s estate, when making the decision.

CPS stats show that between April 2009 and March 2026, 209 cases were referred to them for prosecution for assisted suicide.

Many did not progress for public interest reasons, but six have been successfully prosecuted in this time and 13 cases are ongoing.

Prosecution may be rare, but that is no comfort to those at risk of investigation. The offence is broadly framed under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 such that it encompasses serious criminal conduct but also any act capable of amounting to assistance.

Cases such as Re Ninian in 2019 and the 2024 case of Morris have confirmed that more innocent actions, such as assisting someone with the administration surrounding their desire to end their life and physically helping them travel to a clinic abroad for an assisted death could amount to assistance, even where they have been actively trying to dissuade the person from ending their life.

It is also not widely known that there is a law that can prevent a person from acquiring a benefit in consequence of an unlawful killing, which includes assisting a suicide, such that they would be prevented from receiving an inheritance from the deceased person’s estate or any other benefit arising from their death.

This is known as the forfeiture rule and can have serious ramifications for family members even loosely associated with a loved one’s death.

No criminal prosecution is necessary for the rule to be applied. While it is possible to apply to the court for the rule to be disapplied, there are no guarantees, and an application may be opposed by anyone who would benefit from the forfeited estate.

According to Dignitas 43 British citizens travelled to their clinic to die last year, up from 37 in 2024. These trips are happening and some will have made the decision to travel, perhaps earlier than might otherwise be necessary and to end their lives alone, due to concerns about the legal risk of involving family.

Without reform, the message we are giving to people is that you are on your own; the law cannot help or guide you nor does it permit you to be by your loved one’s side when they die, without the risk of serious legal consequences.

So as we pick over the fate of the Bill, why it failed as drafted and whether there are guardrails society would find acceptable in the debate about assisted dying, we should also bear in mind the issues with the law as it applies more widely, whether or not a person is in the last six months of a terminal illness.

If a Bill is reintroduced, which seems likely, we also need to think about protecting the loved ones of those who choose to end their lives outside the scope of the proposed legislation.

Sandra Paul, is a Partner in the Criminal Litigation team at law firm Kingsley Napley, who has experience of several cases involving parties accused of assisting suicide.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk

© LBC