R. (ex rel. Pretty) v. Director of Public Prosecutions, (2001) 281 N.R. 293 (HL)

• Case Date: November 29, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 281 N.R. 293 (HL)

R. v. Public Prosecutions Dir. (2001), 281 N.R. 293 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

The Queen on the Application of Mrs. Dianne Pretty (appellant) v. Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent) and Secretary of State for the Home Department (interested party)

([2001] UKHL 61)

Indexed As: R. (ex rel. Pretty) v. Director of Public Prosecutions

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Scott of Foscote

November 29, 2001.

Summary:

A woman suffering from motor neurone disease, a progressive degenerative illness from which she had no hope or recovery, wished to enlist the help of her husband to end her life. She was no longer physically able to take her own life. The husband was willing to help her, but only if the Director of Public Prosecutions (D.P.P.) would give an undertaking that he would not be prosecuted under s. 2 of the Suicide Act, 1961, for aiding and abetting his wife's suicide. The D.P.P. refused to give such an undertaking. The wife applied for judicial review.

The Queen's Bench Divisional Court dismissed application. The wife appealed, claiming violations of the European Convention on Human Rights as adopted by the United Kingdom (i.e., art. 2 - the right to life, art. 3 - the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, art. 8 - the right to respect for private and family life (personal autonomy), and art. 14 - prohibition of discrimination).

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding that the woman had not established any breach of a Convention right.

Civil Rights - Topic 205

Life - Right to die - A woman suffering from motor neurone disease, a progressive degenerative illness from which she had no hope or recovery, wanted her husband to help her end her life - She was no longer physically able to do so - The husband was willing to help her, but only if the Director of Public Prosecutions (D.P.P.) would undertake not to prosecute the husband under s. 2 of the Suicide Act, 1961, for aiding and abetting his wife's suicide - The D.P.P. refused to give such an undertaking and the Divisional Court affirmed the decision - The wife appealed, claiming violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (i.e., art. 2 - the right to life, art. 3 - the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, art. 8 -the right to respect for private and family life (personal autonomy), art. 9 - freedom of thought conscience and religion, and art. 14 - prohibition of discrimination) - The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, holding that the woman had not established any breach of a convention right.

Civil Rights - Topic 441

Freedom of conscience and religion - Health care - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 205 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1398

Security of the person - Health care - Assisted suicides - [See Civil Rights - Topic 205 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1441

Security of the person - Right to privacy - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 205 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3808

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - General - Treatment - Meaning of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 205 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3840.4

Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment - What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment - Assisted suicides - [See Civil Rights - Topic 205 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5661.1

Equality and protection of the law - Assisted suicides - Prohibition against - [See Civil Rights - Topic 205 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 24

General principles - Prosecution of crime -Restraint (incl. undertaking not to prosecute) - A woman suffering from a terminal disabling disease wanted her husband to help her end her life - The husband was willing to help her, but only if the Director of Public Prosecutions (D.P.P.) would undertake not to prosecute the husband under s. 2 of the Suicide Act, 1961, for aiding and abetting his wife's suicide - The D.P.P. refused to give such an undertaking and the Divisional Court affirmed the decision - The wife appealed, claiming violations of the European Convention on Human Rights - The House of Lords dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of any Convention rights - The court opined that, in any event, the D.P.P. had no power to give the undertaking sought - See paragraphs 38, 39, 65, 66, 75 to 83, and 113 to 123.

Crown - Topic 609

Attorney General - Criminal proceedings - Discretion to lay charge - [See Criminal Law - Topic 24 ].

Cases Noticed:

Young, James and Webster v. United Kingdom (1981), 4 E.H.R.R. 38, refd to. [para. 6].

Osman v. United Kingdom (1998), 29 E.H.R.R. 245, refd to. [paras. 7, 87].

X. v. Germany (1984), 7 E.H.R.R. 152, refd to. [para. 8].

Airedale National Health Service Trust v. Bland, [1993] A.C. 789 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 9, 109].

J. (A Minor) (Wardship: Medical Treatment), Re, [1991] Fam. 33 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

A. v. United Kingdom (1998), 27 E.H.R.R. 611, refd to. [paras. 11, 90].

Z. v. United Kingdom, [2001] 2 F.L.R. 612, refd to. [para. 11].

D. v. United Kingdom (1997), 24 E.H.R.R. 423, refd to. [paras. 11, 60, 90].

Rees v. United Kingdom (1986), 9 E.H.R.R. 56, refd to. [para. 12].

X. and Y. v. Netherlands (1985), 8 E.H.R.R. 235, refd to. [paras. 17, 98].

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1994] 2 L.R.C. 136; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), affing. (1993), 22 B.C.A.C. 266; 38 W.A.C. 266; 76 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 17, 19, 55, 93, 120].

Rodriguez v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al.

A. Children (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation), Re, [2001] Fam. 147, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. A. (No. 2), [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1546, refd to. [para. 17].

Johansen v. Norway (1996), 23 E.H.R.R. 33, refd to. [para. 17].

P.R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2001] 1 W.L.R. 2002, refd to. [para. 17].

Smith and Grady v. United Kingdom (1999), 29 E.H.R.R. 493, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. United Kingdom (1983), 33 D.R. 270, refd to. [para. 17].

Sanles v. Spain, [2001] E.H.R.L.R. 348, refd to. [para. 17].

Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. United Kingdom (1997), 24 E.H.R.R. 39, refd to. [paras. 18, 110].

Thlimmenos v. Greece (2000), 31 E.H.R.R. 411, refd to. [paras. 32, 103].

Van Raalte v. Netherlands (1997), 24 E.H.R.R. 503, refd to. [para. 33].

Botta v. Italy (1998), 26 E.H.R.R. 241, refd to. [paras. 33, 64].

St. George's Health Care Trust v. S., [1999] Fam. 26, refd to. [para. 55].

Airedale National Health Service Trust v. Bland, [1993] A.C. 789; 149 N.R. 321 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 55].

National Health Service Trust A. v. H., [2001] 2 F.L.R. 501, refd to. [para. 55].

Vacco v. Quill (1997), 521 U.S. 793, refd to. [para. 55].

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), 521 U.S. 702, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Director of Public Prosecutions; Ex parte Kebilene, [2000] 2 A.C. 326 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 67, 77, 113].

Brown v. Stott, [2000] N.R. Uned. 256; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 817 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 75].

Law Hospital National Health Service Trust v. Lord Advocate, 1996 S.L.T. 848 (Ct. of Sess.), refd to. [para. 81].

Lockhart v. Deighan, 1985 S.L.T. 549, refd to. [para. 81].

Chahal v. United Kingdom (1996), 23 E.H.R.R. 413, refd to. [para. 90].

de Freitas v. Permanent Secretary of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Lands and Housing, [1999] 1 A.C. 69 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 93].

Nyambiri v. National Social Security Authority, [1996] 1 L.R.C. 64, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Brown et al., [1994] 1 A.C. 212; 151 N.R. 321 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Croft, [1944] Q.B. 295, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Giannetto, [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 1, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Burke et al., [1987] A.C. 417; 74 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Howe - see R. v. Burke et al.

R. v. Richards, [1974] Q.B. 776 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 111].

Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Phillip, [1995] 1 A.C. 396 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 117].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 241(b) [para. 19].

European Convention on Human Rights, art. 2(1), art. 2(2) [paras. 3, 59, 86, 109]; art. 3 [paras. 10, 60, 89]; art. 8(1), art. 8(2) [paras. 16, 61, 98]; art. 9 [paras. 31, 63, 98]; art. 14 [paras. 32, 64, 103].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Arlidge, Anthony, The Trial of Dr. David Moor, [2000] Crim. L.R. 31, generally [para. 55].

Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1769), vol. 4, c. 14, p. 189 [para. 73].

Boswell, Life of Johnson (3rd Ed. 1970), pp. 496, 735 [para. 29].

Clayton and Tomlinson, The Law of Human Rights (2000), p. 913, para. 13.76 [para. 6]; p. 974, para. 14.49 [para. 6].

Dworkin, Ronald, Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion and Euthanasia (1993), c. 7 [para. 54].

Freeman, Michael, Death, Dying and the Human Rights Act 1998 (1999), 52 C.L.P. 218, p. 237 [para. 57].

Glendon, A World Made New (2001), p. 176 [para. 56].

Johnson and Symonides, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A History of its Creation and Implementation: 1948-1998, Unesco (1998), p. 39 [para. 56].

Keown, John, Euthanasia Examined: Ethical clinical and legal perspectives, Essays (1995), generally [para. 54]; c. 16 [para. 55].

Marston, Geoffrey, The United Kingdom's Part in the Preparation of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 (1993), 42 I.C.L.Q. 796, pp. 818, 819 [para. 56].

Otlowski, Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law (1997), chs. 5 to 8 [para. 54]; pp. 391 to 450 [para. 55].

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Recommendation 1418 (June 25, 1999), pp. 2-4, para. 9(c) [paras. 28, 55, 109].

United Kingdom, 14th Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee (1980) (Cmnd 7844), pp. 60, 61, para. 135 [paras. 27, 29].

United Kingdom, Report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics, House of Lords Paper 21-I (January 31, 1994), generally [para. 85]; p. 11, para. 26 [para. 28]; p. 49, para. 239 [paras. 29, 50]; p. 54, para. 262 [para. 28]; para. 288 [para. 91]; para. 295 [para. 94].

United Kingdom, Response to the Report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics (May 1994) (Cm 2553), generally [paras. 28, 91, 94].

United Nations, Report of the Human Rights Committee (August 27, 2001), CCPR/CO/72/NET, para. 5 [para. 55].

Vickers, Lesley, Assisted Dying and the laws of three European countries (1997), 147 N.L.J. 610, generally [para. 55].

Warnock, Mary, An Intelligent Person's Guide to Ethics (1998), c. 1 [para. 54].

Williams, Glanville, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law (1958), c. 8 [para. 54].

Williams, Glanville, The Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 580 [para. 52].

Counsel:

Philip Havers, Q.C., and Fenella Morris, for the appellants;

David Perry, for the respondent, Director of Public Prosecutions;

Jonathan Crow, for the interested party, the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Agents:

Liberty, for the appellants;

Treasury Solicitor, for the Director of Public Prosecutions and Secretary of State for the Home Department.

This appeal was heard on November 14 and 15, 2001, at London, England, before Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Scott of Foscote. The decision of the House of Lords was delivered on November 29, 2001, when the following speeches were given:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill - see paragraphs 1 to 40;

Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 41 to 70;

Lord Hope of Craighead - see paragraphs 71 to 108;

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - see paragraphs 109 to 123;

Lord Scott of Foscote - see paragraph 124.