Inheritance and assisted suicide: The estate of David Peace

The recent order by the EWHC on the issue of whether a beneficiary of an estate who has assisted the deceased in ending their own life, raises some interesting questions about the Suicide Act 1961, the rule against forfeiture and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. 

The case concerned the estate of Mr Peace, who ended his life at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland in December 2021. It is reported that Mr Peace travelled to Switzerland with one of the beneficiaries under his will and therefore, technically, the ‘forfeiture rule’ could apply, thus preventing the beneficiary from receiving their designated gifts under the will. 

However, the other beneficiaries who stood to inherit under Mr Peace’s will agreed that the beneficiary who travelled to Switzerland with the Mr Peace should inherit according to the terms of the will. They requested that the executor make distributions in accordance with the will/agreement. 

The question then arose as to whether the executor could distribute the estate, based on this agreement. Although there was no formal judgment delivered, the court saw no reasons of public policy why such an agreement would not be enforceable. 

The ‘forfeiture rule’ and assisted dying 

Section 1 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 outlines the ‘forfeiture rule’ as a rule of public policy which precludes an individual who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing in certain circumstances. 

Under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, it is an offence to assist in an individual’s suicide. An offence under the Suicide Act 1961 may be committed, for example, by travelling with someone to a country where assisted dying is legal for an assisted death. Therefore, if a beneficiary under a will assists a testator in such a way, the ‘forfeiture rule’ may apply, which would prevent the beneficiary from acquiring a benefit under the deceased’s will.  

An increasing number of individuals are choosing to end their lives either in this country or by travelling to clinics abroad where assisted suicide is legal. Often such individuals will be accompanied or assisted by those closest to them, who will also be beneficiaries under the will.

This could apply in a husband and wife situation, with the spouses travelling together to Switzerland. By travelling with their spouse, the surviving spouse may lose their right to inherit their late spouses’ estate either under their will or on an intestacy. 

This case confirms that where all adult beneficiaries have capacity and are together entitled to the entire estate, they may agree to waive the forfeiture rule, avoiding the costs, worry and delay of applying to court for relief from forfeiture. However, for those estates with minor or incapacitated beneficiaries, court approval will still be required.

Implications

In this case, all the interested beneficiaries were in agreement. However, there could be a family or friendship disagreement about whether a trip to Switzerland was the right thing to do, and it may be that all the beneficiaries are not in agreement. What would be the position in these circumstances? Would it make a difference if there was no case brought against anyone for “assisting” with the death, as this tends to be the CPS’ approach to these situations? 

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is currently being scrutinised by the House of Lords, following its third reading in the House of Commons. If enacted, the Bill includes relief from liability, or, alternatively, a defence for a person who assists someone in ending their life in accordance with the Bill’s provisions, meaning that the risk of forfeiture would no longer be relevant in circumstances where assisted death was covered by the Bill. However, given the uncertainty around the Bill, there may be more cases to come in this area.