Local Authority v Z

A competent adult is entitled to make decisions about ending her own life, even where the decision is regarded as unwise and its implementation may involve another person committing a criminal offence. A local authority’s duties towards a vulnerable adult are needs-based and limited. They include investigating competence, influence, information and available options, and considering whether court intervention is required. If the adult lacks capacity, the authority must reasonably assist in determining and giving effect to her best interests. If she has capacity, the authority must allow her, in any lawful way, to give effect to her decision, while retaining the ability to provide advice or assistance. An injunction restraining criminal conduct is exceptional. Where the criminal justice agencies have the necessary knowledge and powers, the authority has no duty to seek its continuation merely because assistance may involve an offence.

Mrs Z was seriously disabled by an incurable neurological condition and had persistently decided to seek an assisted suicide in Switzerland. Her competence was assessed by an independent psychiatrist and accepted by all parties. Her husband proposed to arrange and accompany the journey, conduct which appeared likely to contravene section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961.

A local authority had obtained an interim injunction restraining Mr Z from removing Mrs Z from England and Wales. The Official Solicitor initially acted for Mrs Z but became an Advocate to the Court once her competence was established. The issues were whether the authority had a duty to seek continuation of the injunction and whether the court should continue it of its own motion.

1. Competence and autonomy. Mrs Z had legal capacity to decide whether to take her own life. Section 1 of the Suicide Act 1961 removed the criminal penalty for suicide; it did not make suicide lawful or encourage it. The law did not prohibit a competent person from taking her own life, and the court had no legal basis to prohibit her decision. If capacity had been absent, the court could have acted according to her best interests. In the present circumstances, however, those interests were not for the court to determine.
2. Local authority duties. The authority’s duties were limited to the particular needs assessed. It had to investigate the vulnerable adult’s position and intentions; assess competence; consider outside influence; ensure that relevant information and options were understood; consider whether the inherent jurisdiction should be invoked; assist with best-interests decision-making where capacity was absent; permit a competent adult to give effect to her decision in any lawful way; notify the police where a criminal offence might be involved; and, only in very exceptional circumstances, invoke section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972.
3. Criminal conduct and injunctions. The High Court’s jurisdiction to restrain criminal acts existed but had to be exercised sparingly, exceptionally and with great caution. There had to be more than a mere infringement of criminal law, and an injunction had to be necessary to prevent continuing unlawful activity.
4. Application to the case. The authority had no duty to seek continuation of the injunction. The criminal justice agencies knew the relevant facts and possessed the necessary powers, while section 2(4) of the Suicide Act 1961 entrusted prosecution consent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The court should not continue the injunction of its own motion where no person with standing sought it and its effect would be to deny a competent, seriously disabled person a decision she could not physically implement herself. The injunction was discharged.

The judgment records that Black J, sitting in Manchester, granted an injunction on 29 November 2004 restraining Mr Z from removing Mrs Z from England and Wales. The High Court (Family Division) subsequently discharged that injunction.