When dealing with the terminal illness of a loved one, the legal implications can be tough to wrap your head around, especially with the emotional toll of the situation.
A recent High Court ruling has brought attention to the relationship between assisted dying and inheritance laws in the UK. In this blog, we’ll explore this landmark case and its implications for those involved in similar circumstances.
Understanding the Forfeiture Rule
The provisions of the Forfeiture Act 1982 prevent a person who has unlawfully killed another from benefiting from their death, particularly in matters of inheritance. This means that if someone is found to have caused another’s death unlawfully, they are typically disqualified from inheriting any part of the deceased’s estate.
However, the law also provides room for discretion. Under Section 2(2)of the Forfeiture Act, the Court has the authority to modify the effect of the rule if “the justice of the case” requires it. This discretionary power was central to the recent case involving Philip Morris.
The Case of Philip Morris
Philip Morris, a 76-year-old man, faced a heart-wrenching situation when his wife, Myra Morris, was diagnosed with multiple system atrophy—a rare, degenerative neurological disorder with no known cure. Myra, 73, was in constant pain and made the deeply personal decision to end her life at the Pegasos clinic in Liestal, Switzerland, where assisted dying is legal.
With profound reluctance but out of love and respect for his wife’s wishes, Philip assisted Myra in her journey to Switzerland in December 2023. She self-administered a fatal dose of pentobarbital at the clinic, ending her suffering.
Upon returning to the UK, Philip voluntarily reported his involvement to the local police. While he was informed that there was nothing to report criminally, the question arose: Could he inherit from his wife’s estate given his involvement in her assisted death?
This was a particularly trick matter as it involved consideration of the interests of the late Mrs Morris’ two children who would have inherited their mother’s estate if the forfeiture rule was applied.
The High Court’s Ruling
In a landmark decision, Mr Justice Trower granted relief from the forfeiture rule i.e. that it should not apply in Philip’s case. He stated:
“Philip sacrificed his own happiness and put himself at risk of prosecution to honour the heartfelt wishes of his wife. It is clear to me that this was not because he wanted her to die—far from it—but rather because he loved and respected his wife too much to disregard her wishes.”
Whilst the court emphasised the consensus among the family members affected, nonetheless, this judgment underscores the court’s ability to exercise discretion in cases where strict application of the forfeiture rule would result in an unjust outcome.
“The current legal status of assisted dying/assisted suicide is inadequate and incoherent. The law does not provide a clear definition of which actions might constitute assisting or encouraging suicide. This is an emotive subject and the UK Parliament and legislatures around the world, are wrestling with the complex legal, ethical and practical landscape. Whilst they ponder, the law, certainly in a common law jurisdiction such as ours, will evolve, as evidenced by this case.”
– John Gorner, Consultant Solicitor at Slater Heelis
What does this mean for other cases?
The case sets a significant precedent for individuals who find themselves in similar circumstances. It highlights that:
- Assisted dying remains a criminal offence in England and Wales, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, though prosecutions are rare.
- Courts can and do consider the individual circumstances of each case, especially where compassion and respect for the deceased’s wishes are evident.
How We Can Help
If you or someone you know is facing similar challenges, it’s crucial to seek professional legal advice. You can reach out to us at 0330 111 3131 or by filling out our online contact form to schedule a consultation.