R v DPP: Analysis of the Pretty Case and Human Rights Implications

This report analyzes the landmark case of R (on the application of Pretty) v DPP [2001] UKHL 61, concerning assisted suicide and human rights. The case involved Mrs. Pretty, who suffered from motor neurone disease and sought assurance from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) that her husband would not be prosecuted for assisting her suicide. The analysis summarizes the facts, including Pretty's arguments based on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically Articles 2, 3, 8, 9, and 14. It explores the court's decision, which found no violation of the ECHR, emphasizing that the right to life does not equate to a right to die and that the DPP's discretion in prosecution was not unlawfully exercised. The report references relevant case law from the European Court of Human Rights and addresses the implications of the Suicide Act 1961. Ultimately, the House of Lords upheld the dismissal, ruling that the DPP could not grant immunity from prosecution for future offenses, and that the prohibition under the Suicide Act was compatible with the conventions.

R on application of Pretty vs Dpp
2001UKHL 61

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................2
R. (on the application of Pretty) v DPP [2001] UKHL 61..............................................................1
A. Summarising the material facts of the case and Appellant’s complaint................................1
B. Explaining decision in case referring specifically to European Convention on the Human
Rights (ECHR).............................................................................................................................2

R. (on the application of Pretty) v DPP [2001] UKHL 61
A. Summarising the material facts of the case and Appellant’s complaint
Mrs Pretty suffered from the disease called motor neurone and made appeal against the
dismissal related to application for the judicial review of refusal by DPP for giving undertaking
for not prosecuting the husband in Suicide Act 1961. Applicant was UK national who alleged
that sec 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 that contained crime of abetting and aiding the suicide
under the British law, has violated her right under European Convention for Protection of the
Human Rights and the fundamental freedom in the Art 2 ( right of life), Art 3 (for freedom from
inhuman or torture or degraded treatment or the punishment), Art 8 (right of respect of private
life & family), 9 (freedom of thoughts, religion and conscience) & 14 (prohibition of the
discrimination)
Applicant in the case was dying due to physically devastating disease having no
treatment, but the intellect and decision making ability was not impaired due to this. Given that
ultimate stage of disease were distressed and humiliating she wished of controlling of when and
how she will die. However she was not able to physically do so1. Under the English law
committing suicide is lawful and however assisting how to commit suicide to others is crime
under Suicide Act. The Director of the Public Prosecutions denied request of applicant to
guaranteeing freedom to her husband, the liberty from the prosecution if director helped for
committing suicide. Applicant sought at the first instance that (1) declaration that DPP has been
acting unlawfully denying to give the commitment that husband will be not be prosecuted & (2)
alternative, the declaration that Prohibition was not compatible with conventions & rights under
the sect 4 of HRA (Human Rights Act).
Divisional court rejected the appeal of Pretty at the 1st instance. Application appealed to
the House of Lords. The House considered whether any articles of convention requires member
state for rendering assisted suicide as against the law and whether DPP should have provided
undertaking of not prosecuting. Court found that there was no violation of the Article 2, 3, 8, 9 &
14 of Convention2. Court gave that DPP do not have capacity of granting the immunity from the
1 Powell, Dave. "Assisting Suicide and the Discretion to Prosecute Revisited: R (on the Application of Purdy) v DPP
[2009] UKHL 45." The Journal of Criminal Law 73. no. 6 (2009): 475-479.
2 MACK, J., PURDY, R (ON THE APPLICATION OF) v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & ORS
[2009] EWCA Civ 92 (19 February 2009) 16 Suicide Act 1961 s 2 (1) & (4)-assisting suicide by making travel
arrangements-whether DPP obliged to publish guidance on prosecution policy-no-personal.
1

prosecution & the prohibition as per the UK laws was in accordance with conventions.
Particularly court held that art 2 provides that right of life cannot be deprived by way of the
intentional intervention of humans and not right to die. The Art 8 right of respect for private &
the family life restricts the interference with ways through which the individual lead the life and
do not relay to manner through which it wished of dyeing. DPP had prosecution of whether or
not to be prosecuted under Prohibition in the Suicide Act, but the discretion could be exercised
only in the past and not in future events.
B. Explaining decision in case referring specifically to European Convention on the Human
Rights (ECHR).
The case law of European Court of Human Rights which covers a wide range of different
subjects arise due to ECHR. In the case of Strasbourg the significance of ECHR lies in the direct
impact upon case law on legal as well as political system of 47 contracting parties. With the help
of ECHR, court identified the structural problem in civil, criminal and administrative
proceedings. Also, the protection of human rights in which court offers Article 13 in ECHR
which is entitled as ‘Right to an effective remedy’.
Law does not confers right to suicide and it is always a crime and it is only crime where
defendant can be charged ever. The main effect of criminal act of the suicide has been seen for
the persons who have attempted but failed and the secondary parties 3. Art 2 is clear and provides
principle of sancity of the life and it provides the guarantee which the individual should not be
deprived of the life through the intentional interventions of humans. Interpretation of the article
is exactly opposite of the claim that Pretty had right to end the life by intentional human
interventions.
Pretty claimed that refusal of DPP was breach of articles of Human Rights Act and European
convention.
The case was heard by the House of Lords, Bailii. The Coram hearing the case: Lord
Bingham of the Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hobhouse of the
Woodborough and the Lord Scott of the Foscote.
Upholding the dismissal, it was held by the House that DPP did not possessed the power
of deciding for no prosecution where offence was yet to commit and that the section 2(1) of
3 Powell, D., 2009. Assisting Suicide and the Discretion to Prosecute: Hard Cases and Good Law? R (on the
Application of Debbie Purdy) v DPP [2008] EWHC 2565 (Admin). The Journal of Criminal Law. 73(1). pp.8-11.
2

Suicide Act, 1961 was also compatible with convention4. Right enshrined in the art 3 on right to
human dignity was right to live with the dignity and to take active steps for bringing life to the
premature end was other than from not taking undignified and futile steps for prolonging the life
beyond the natural end.
Protection of the human life is social aim that justified the interference with the right to have
respect for the private life and the freedom of conscience and thought under article 8 & 9. The art
8 is expressed in the terms directed for protection of the personal autonomy meanwhile the
individuals were living the life and nothing was there to suggest that it had reference to choose
for not living longer 5. Contention of the Pretty that she suffered the discrimination in the
enjoyment of the conventions rights due to the physical incapacity cannot be sustained as the art
14 not had free standing & applicable in situations where the other conventions right were there
in play. The suicide act do not give right of committing suicide in any event. Also, the activity of
ECHR encounter certain problem such that constitutional courts in Europe also have a consistent
track records in order to take a case of Strasbourg very seriously. So, another major problem
within a committee of Minister should have to deal and lack of execution while providing
judgment by ECHR that guaranteed human rights.
4 R (on the application of Pretty) v Director of Public Prosecutions . 2020. [Online]. Available through : <
https://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/HL-2001-Regina-on-the-application-of-Pretty-v.-
Director-of-Public-Prosecutions.pdf>.
5 O'Keefe, R., 2002. APPEALS; The Cambridge Law Journal; Case and Comment. The Cambridge Law Journal. 61.
p.499.
3