Philip Dennis Morris v James Jonathan Morris & Ors

The forfeiture rule may be modified where assistance in a suicide was motivated by compassion and followed a clear, settled and informed decision by the deceased. The court must assess the offender’s culpability and all material circumstances, including the relationship, the deceased’s wishes, the nature of the conduct, financial considerations and the claims of alternative beneficiaries.

Accompanying a person to Switzerland may constitute assistance, but it is not automatically assistance in every case. The court must examine what the accompanying person actually did and intended. Mere presence as a supportive relative, without acts capable of assisting or an intention to assist, does not engage the forfeiture rule.

The claimant assisted his wife, Myra Morris, who was suffering from a progressive and incurable neurological condition, to travel to Switzerland for an assisted death. He accepted that his administrative and financial assistance engaged section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 and that, absent relief, the forfeiture rule would apply.

The court considered whether the claimant’s conduct justified modification under section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1982. It also considered whether the claimant’s adult children and Myra’s sister forfeited their interests merely by accompanying Myra to Switzerland, and whether a representative party should be appointed for more remote beneficiaries.

1. The court modified the forfeiture rule in full under section 2(2) of the Forfeiture Act 1982. The claimant’s assistance was motivated wholly by compassion and followed Myra’s voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to die. He had repeatedly sought to dissuade her, provided reluctant assistance only in the face of her determination, and reported the death to the police.
2. The court applied the guidance in Dunbar v Plant [1998] Ch 412. The principal consideration was whether the claimant’s culpability justified application of the rule. The court also considered the relationship, moral culpability, nature and gravity of the offence, Myra’s intentions, the value and source of the estate, the claimant’s financial position and the wishes of those who might otherwise benefit.
3. The court found that the conduct did not amount to encouragement. Although the claimant’s acts were intended assistance within section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, the evidence showed that he did not want Myra to die and acted because she was resolute.
4. Accompanying a person to Switzerland may be an act capable of assisting suicide, depending on the circumstances and the role played. It is not invariably so. Jamie, Katie and Susan merely provided comfort, were not involved in the arrangements, were not required to assist Myra during the journey and intended only to support her. Their interests were therefore not forfeit.
5. The court joined Mr White as a representative party under CPR 19.9(2)(d), approved his decision not to oppose relief on behalf of the represented class, and held that a short directions hearing may be required where potential beneficiaries accompanied the deceased and were present at the death.