In a landmark judgment, the England and Wales High Court (EWHC) has ruled that a widower, Philip Morris, can inherit the residue of his late wife Myra Morris’s estate, despite having accompanied her to a Swiss clinic where she died by assisted suicide (Morris v Morris, 2024 EWHC 2554 Ch), as reported by STEP.
The ruling clarifies that merely accompanying someone to a location where they plan to end their life does not amount to assisting suicide under the law.
Myra Morris, aged 73, died on December 5th, 2023, at the Pegasos clinic in Switzerland. She had been suffering for two years from Multiple System Atrophy, an incurable degenerative neurological disorder. A coroner’s inquest confirmed her condition had deteriorated to the point where she had little enjoyment of life, was in constant pain, and struggled to cope.
It was accepted by all parties that Myra ended her life by self-administration of an overdose of pentobarbital, assisted by the clinic staff and her husband, Philip, who had accompanied her alongside their two adult children. Philip had also helped with the administrative arrangements for her trip to the clinic. Although this involvement engaged the assisted suicide provisions of section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, which could have invoked the forfeiture rule in the Forfeiture Act 1982, the court ultimately decided in his favour.
Myra had made a will in December 2021, leaving her residuary estate in trust for Philip and, upon his death, to their children in equal shares. Philip applied to the court for relief under section 2(2) of the Forfeiture Act to modify the rule and allow him to inherit.
The EWHC considered the details of Philip’s involvement, including a witness statement from Myra before her death. Her solicitor confirmed she had the mental capacity to make an informed, voluntary decision to end her life, free from undue influence or pressure, as per the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The court also referenced the Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide, which lists public interest factors that could influence a decision to prosecute. After reviewing all 16 factors that favour prosecution, the judge concluded that none applied in this case.
The court found that Myra had made a clear, voluntary, and informed decision to end her life, which she maintained throughout. Philip’s actions, motivated by compassion, came only after her decision was made, and he had even attempted to dissuade her. Moreover, he had fully cooperated with authorities by reporting the death to the police, who chose not to pursue the matter further.
Citing the principle from Dunbar v Plant (1998 Ch 412), the court found no evidence of Philip’s moral culpability and granted him full relief from the forfeiture rule. The decision was supported by the consent of all beneficiaries of the estate.
The court also addressed whether Myra’s two children, who had travelled with her to Switzerland, could forfeit their inheritance. A previous case, Ninian v Findlay (2019 EWHC 297 Ch), had raised the question of whether traveling to Switzerland with someone intending to die by assisted suicide could amount to assistance under section 2(1) of the 1961 Act. However, the EWHC ruled that this was not the case here. The children’s presence was purely to provide comfort, and nothing they did was capable of encouraging or assisting Myra’s suicide. Therefore, their interests in the estate were not forfeit.
