The growing number of people with terminal illnesses who choose to end their lives at clinics such as Dignitas has thrown up a troubling legal question: what happens when a friend or relative helps them make that journey and is also a beneficiary of their will?
Under English law, assisting or encouraging suicide remains a criminal offence. Even where no prosecution is brought, civil consequences may still arise. Chief among them is the forfeiture rule, a principle that prevents individuals who have unlawfully killed another from inheriting from their victim’s estate. The rule has traditionally applied to murder and manslaughter. But where does that leave those who assist a terminally ill person with their death?
This was the dilemma at the heart of Re Peace, Grant v Murphy (2025, unreported), where I acted for the executor of an estate and instructed Justin Holmes of Radcliffe Chambers. It raised difficult questions about intent and the uncertain interface between the criminal and civil consequences of helping someone to die as they wished. Ultimately, the case was resolved by agreement, but not without considerable effort and expense.
The law on forfeiture is governed by both common law and statute, principally the Forfeiture Act 1982. While section 2 of the act gives courts the discretion to grant relief from forfeiture in appropriate cases, there is no definitive guidance on how that discretion should be exercised where the conduct in question involves helping a person end their life voluntarily.
Assisting a suicide abroad, even if it is upon the express wish of a dying person, is still technically a crime under the Suicide Act 1961. However, the director of public prosecutions (DPP) has indicated that prosecutions are unlikely where: the person who assisted acted wholly out of compassion; the deceased had a clear and settled intention to die; and there was no evidence of coercion or financial motivation.
That stance offers some reassurance on the criminal front, but not in relation to matters of succession and inheritance. The forfeiture rule may still apply regardless of whether criminal charges are brought. And unlike in criminal law, the threshold for ‘unlawful killing’ in civil proceedings is lower.
In Re Peace et al, the deceased had left a will naming several people as beneficiaries. At least one of them had helped arrange the journey abroad for the assisted death. Though no one disputed that these actions had been motivated by care and respect for the deceased’s wishes, concerns arose that they could be seen, at least technically, as having assisted a suicide.
If that beneficiary was deemed to have forfeited his interest under the will, his share would fall into residue or pass to others in substitution, depending on the terms of the will. Those substitute beneficiaries would receive a significantly larger share if a main beneficiary had forfeited his interest.
To avoid that outcome and to minimise the need for intervention from the court, all the named beneficiaries in the deceased’s will entered into an agreement confirming that no one who had helped the deceased achieve his desired end of life should be treated as having forfeited their entitlement. The executor then sought a court order approving the agreement and authorising him to distribute the estate on that basis.
The court was satisfied with the arrangement and made the order. The cooperative position of the beneficiaries in this case perhaps made it unusual but the process was still far from straightforward. Even with all parties largely in agreement, obtaining the order involved careful preparation of evidence, legal submissions, and formal representation for each of the relevant beneficiaries. The costs were significant, particularly relative to the value of the estate, and diminished the value of what some of the beneficiaries will receive.
Such disputes could arise in many estates, especially where some beneficiaries stand to gain if others are disqualified from inheriting. In such cases, resolution through agreement may not be possible and an application to the court for relief from forfeiture would most likely become necessary.
That brings its own risks, of course. The outcome is discretionary and the law remains undeveloped. While courts have granted relief in some assisted dying cases, such decisions tend to be fact-specific and unpredictable. Evidence about the extent and nature of the assistance, the deceased’s mental capacity, and the motives of the helper will all be scrutinised.
Even where relief is granted, the process can be emotionally draining, time-consuming and expensive. The costs of litigation could consume a large portion of the estate. These issues pose a real challenge for private client practitioners, especially those advising testators or executors.
Where a client is contemplating assisted dying abroad, solicitors should flag the inheritance risks to any proposed helpers, ideally before any assistance is provided. Forward planning might include a letter of wishes explaining the circumstances and the deceased’s wish that forfeiture should not apply, or a clause in the will directing the executors to seek court approval in the event of any forfeiture concerns.
For executors administering an estate after an assisted death, early investigation into the facts is essential. If assistance was given by a beneficiary, legal advice should be sought promptly. Depending on the circumstances, options may include:
- Negotiating an agreement to avoid forfeiture;
- Applying to court for approval of such an agreement; or
- Seeking relief from forfeiture under the 1982 act.
In all cases, practitioners must manage expectations around cost and delay. Even unopposed applications can result in substantial legal fees and delay distributions for many months.
As assisted dying becomes a more prominent issue in society, the lack of clarity is something lawyers are increasingly likely to have to grapple with. But this case provides a road map and may pave the way for avoiding distressing and costly forfeiture applications in the right circumstances.
Jan Atkinson is head of private client at Osbornes Law, London
No comments yet