When Compassion Meets Law: the Forfeiture Act 1982, Assisted Suicide cases and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

The interaction between morality and the law is frequently observed in modern society and plays a prominent role in assisted suicide cases. In this blog I will discuss how assisted suicide interacts with the Forfeiture Act 1982 (“the Forfeiture Act”), through a review of the recent case of Morris v Morris [2024] EWHC 2554 (Ch). I will then address the government’s recent proposals for an assisted dying bill and how this may have an impact on those looking to end their own lives in the future. 

According to the Forfeiture Act, the general position in law is that a person is prevented from inheriting another person’s Estate in the event they ‘unlawfully kill’ that other person (“the Forfeiture Rule”). It has also been long settled in case law that ‘unlawful killing’ encompasses offences such as murder, manslaughter and assisted suicide.  However, the courts are empowered by the Forfeiture Act to modify the Forfeiture Rule in certain circumstances, so that the individual concerned is nevertheless entitled to inherit another’s Estate despite having an involvement in their death. 

Myra Morris ended her life in 2023 following a trip to a Swiss clinic. She had been suffering with Multiple System Atrophy, a rare and degenerative neurological disorder with no known cure. During the 2 years prior to her death, Myra’s condition had deteriorated to the point where she had little enjoyment from life, was in constant pain and found it difficult to cope. Myra ended her life by self-administering an overdose of pentobarbital, assisted by the clinic staff and her husband, Phillip, who had accompanied her alongside their two adult children and her sister. Phillip had also helped with the administrative arrangements for her trip to the clinic.  

Myra had executed a Will in December 2021, with her residuary Estate being held on trust for Phillip and, upon his death, to their children in equal shares.  

Given Phillip and the children’s assistance infringed the assisted suicide provisions in Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 (“the Suicide Act”), on the face of it they would all be subject to the Forfeiture Rule. Phillip therefore applied to the court for relief under Section 2(2) of the Forfeiture Act to modify the Forfeiture Rule and allow himself and his children to inherit. 

As part of Phillip’s evidence, Myra’s solicitor provided a witness statement which stated that, prior to her death, she had testamentary capacity to make an informed and voluntary decision to end her life and that she was under no undue influence, pressure or encouragement to arrive at that decision. Myra herself had also produced a witness statement which described the intolerable nature of her day-to-day life, her settled wish to travel to Switzerland for an assisted death and how she did not wish for Phillip or her children to get into any trouble for accompanying her to the clinic and assisting in the final arrangements. 

When Myra took her own life, Phillip and their children were present to provide comfort, knowing she was unwavering in her desire to commit suicide. They did nothing tangible to assist her in taking her own life. The act of taking her life was Myra’s alone.

Following his return to England, Phillip informed the police of his wife’s voluntary assisted death. The police advised there was nothing to report and it was not until February 2024, when Myra’s Estate was being administered, that Phillip became aware of the implications of the Forfeiture Rule. It was at this point that he applied to the court for modification of it.

Although Phillip’s actions necessitated an examination of the provisions of the Suicide Act, which fell under the remit of the Forfeiture Rule, the court held it should be modified in this instance.     

The key factor which led to the court finding in Phillip’s favour was his level of involvement/influence. The court found that Myra had made a clear, voluntary, and informed decision to end her life, which she maintained throughout. Phillip’s actions were motivated solely by compassion for his wife, and came only after her decision was made, and he had even attempted to dissuade her. He had accompanied her to the Swiss clinic to merely facilitate the carrying out of her own wishes.  

The Court ultimately decided that there was no evidence of Phillip’s moral culpability and therefore granted him relief from the Forfeiture Rule, allowing him to inherit his share of Myra’s Estate. Additionally, the Court also held that Myra’s children were also free to inherit her Estate, given their presence at the Swiss clinic alongside their mother was purely to provide comfort and nothing they said or did was capable of encouraging or assisting Myra’s suicide. 

Whilst the Forfeiture Rule theoretically prevents those who unlawfully kill another from inheriting that other person’s Estate, the Morris case has demonstrated that whether this rule applies in assisted suicide cases is dependent on the moral culpability the court attaches to a given perpetrator’s actions. It is therefore the court’s clear intention to assess these incidents on a case-by-case basis. 

The circumstances in the Morris case are likely to continue to attract significant public attention in the wake of the government’s recent announcements surrounding the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which aims to provide terminally ill individuals with the choice to end their suffering on their own terms. Whilst this Bill symbolises the championing of individual bodily autonomy, to strike the appropriate balance, there are plans for the following safeguards to be put in place:

• The individual concerned must:
  • have the mental capacity to make the choice and be deemed to have expressed a clear, settled and informed wish, free from coercion or pressure;
  • be expected to die within 6 months;
  • make two separate declarations, witnessed and signed, about their wish to die; and
  • undergo an assessment by two independent doctors to ensure they are eligible.   
• Additionally, a High Court judge must hear from at least one of the doctors and can also question the dying person, or anyone else they consider appropriate. There must also be a further 14 days after the judge has made the ruling before any action is taken.

Although the Bill would permit a doctor to prepare the relevant substance, it is the individual themselves who must take it.    

During the Bill’s second reading in the House of Commons on 29th November 2024, MPs voted 330 to 275 in support of it. MPs advocating for assisted dying framed the legislation as an overdue reform to alleviate unnecessary suffering, while opponents warned of the potential consequences for the disabled and vulnerable, expressing concerns that such individuals would view themselves as a burden to society in the event they chose not to end their life despite being eligible to do so under the legislation.