The decision by the High Court in June 2025 following the death of David Peace engages significant legal and ethical questions concerning the interpretation of the Suicide Act 1961, the common law rule against forfeiture, and the prospective implications of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
As was widely reported The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (more commonly known as the Assisted Dying bill) was introduced into Parliament on 11 November 2024. The bill makes provision for an individual who is suffering with a terminal illness and who meets certain eligibility criteria to lawfully request help in ending their own life. It also follows that those ‘providing assistance’ in these circumstances would not be guilty of an offence.
Whilst the act of suicide itself was decriminalised in 1961, assisted suicide is still currently illegal under the Suicide Act 1961 and carries a potential prison sentence of up to 14 years for those who are found to have helped a person end their life.
Should the Assisted Dying bill be passed therefore and assisted suicide also effectively decriminalised it would dramatically alter the legalities surrounding assisted dying.
Euthanasia, suicide and assisted suicide are understandably incredibly emotive subjects with deeply personal, ethical and religious viewpoints often at the forefront of the discussions along with concerns about the sanctity of life and possible risk of undue influence or abuse. However, assisted suicide also has implications for how an estate can legally be administered.
If a person is found to have unlawfully killed another person they are subsequently prevented from benefitting from their estate under the forfeiture rules. The forfeiture rules stem from a common law principle and is rooted in the legal maxim that no one should profit from their own wrongdoing.
The Forfeiture Act 1982 allows a person who would otherwise be disqualified under the forfeiture rule to apply for relief from the rule to allow them to still inherit, either under a will or the intestacy rules. The court may grant this relief if it finds that, considering all the circumstances, the justice of the case requires it. In cases of those who have assisted in another’s suicide it usually follows that this is contrary to section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 and they are therefore unable to inherit from their estate without first obtaining the necessary relief from the court.
The Death of David Peace
David Peace, a British man in his early 70s suffering with terminal motor neurone disease made the decision to travel to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland in 2021 to end his life. He was accompanied by a friend, who was also named as a beneficiary under Mr Peace’s will.
His friend had assisted with his suicide which ordinarily would result in a criminal charge under the Suicide Act 1961 and prevent him from benefiting from Mr Peace’s Will under the forfeiture rules.
However, the other beneficiaries who would have benefited under the will had the forfeiture taken place requested that the Executor arrange the distributions in accordance with the original will. They agreed that Mr Peace’s wishes should be observed in full and the original beneficiary should still inherit.
The issue before the court was whether the executor could safely rely on the agreement of the beneficiaries and was permitted to distribute the estate pursuant to their agreement, in the absence of a formal request for relief from forfeiture.
Although no formal judgment was handed down, the court identified no public policy considerations that would prevent the enforceability of such an agreement meaning the executor was able to distribute the estate accordingly. The Court confirmed that if all adult beneficiaries with capacity together agree to waive forfeiture, the executor may proceed with distribution without needing to apply for formal court relief or a Forfeiture Act order.
The decision in this case suggests a departure from the usual procedures of formally requesting relief from the court from the forfeiture rules before distribution can take place. This potentially means those involved in estate administration may no longer have to undertake lengthy and costly applications to the court to seek relief from the forfeiture rules and instead safely rely on an agreement by all beneficiaries.
The courts have a history of disallowing the forfeiture rule in cases of assisted suicide. The recent cases of Morris v Morris [2024] EWHC 2554 (Ch) and Re Ninian (Deceased) [2019] EWHC 297 (Ch) were both concerned with spouses who had facilitated travel with their husband or wife to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. In both cases the court held that the forfeiture rules should not apply and those involved should still be permitted to inherit under their spouse’s estate.
What are the implications of the Assisted Dying Bill on the Forfeiture Rules?
It has not yet been explicitly confirmed how the Assisted Dying bill will impact the forfeiture rules. However, if assisted suicide is decriminalised it follows that those persons involved in assisted suicide would no longer be deemed to have unlawfully killed so they would no longer be prevented from inheriting under the forfeiture rules. Although the complex interaction between the Bill and the forfeiture rules may require further consideration. In addition, any person who has assisted with suicide but does not meet the specific criteria set out within the Bill would not obtain relief from criminal liability meaning the forfeiture rules may still apply in cases of assisted dying. For example, the Assisted dying bill, in its current form will only apply to those with six months or less to live, meaning anyone outside of these criteria would not obtain the relief. In such cases those affected may seek to rely on the Peace case and come to an agreement amongst the beneficiaries, and avoid costly court applications. However, even when an agreement has been reached it may still be prudent to seek consent from the court to proceed to avoid public policy concerns.
In June 2025 the Assisted Dying Bill completed its passage through the House of Commons, having passed its third reading by 314 to 291 votes. The bill passed its second reading in the House of Lords in September 2025 and is currently undergoing a detailed examination in the House of Lords in the committee stage.
How Lee Bolton Monier – Williams can help
If you have any concerns or questions about anything raised in this article then please contact Megan Morgan in the Private Client Department who will be happy to assist you.