Even so, the consultant’s notes recorded that Mrs Ninian remained opposed to her husband ending his life at Dignitas.
Mr and Mrs Ninian were aware that her assisting him in his intended suicide might be a criminal offence. She wisely sought advice on her position from solicitors.
They, in turn, sent Mr Ninian to another firm of solicitors in order for him to obtain independent legal advice.
As a result of this, he changed the terms of his will in a significant way: the default terms of his will had previously named two charities, which he replaced with Mrs Ninian’s brothers. That he did so was important for reasons that will become apparent. In that will, he also set out his reasons for wanting to commit suicide.
Mrs Ninian accompanied her husband to Zurich on November 13 2017. Without her assistance, he could not have travelled to Switzerland, or to the various appointments that had been arranged when they arrived.
After the usual procedures, approval for the suicide was given, and on November 16 2017 Mr Ninian committed suicide as planned. Mrs Ninian did not provide any direct assistance in the substances that were used to end his life.
Following Mrs Ninian’s return to the UK, there was a police investigation. A report was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service who concluded that a prosecution would not be in the public interest, consistent with the relevant policy statement.
After all, this was perhaps the epitome of a compassionate case: a reluctant wife who put her own wishes to one side and helped her husband to end his life in the manner of his choosing.
Forfeiture
While Mrs Ninian did not face any consequences from the criminal law, the position under the civil law was different. As the court found, assisting a person to commit suicide in the manner that Mrs Ninian did engages the forfeiture rule, which served to disentitle her from benefit under her late husband’s will.
However, by virtue of section two of the Forfeiture Act 1982, the court has the power to modify or exclude the effect of the rule, but only if it is satisfied that having had regard to the conduct of the offender and the deceased and to such other circumstances as appear to the court to be material, the justice of the case requires the effect of the rule to be modified or excluded.
Mrs Ninian applied to the court for relief from forfeiture, and succeeded.
One of the interesting issues that the court had to decide was whether the forfeiture rule was engaged in the first place, given that she had not been convicted of any offence.
