What the Hartley Family Case Study Reveals About Criminal and Civil Risk

In this edition of the HNW Advisor podcast, we hear from Sophie Wood, a partner in the criminal litigation team at Kingsley Napley, and Laura Phillips, a legal director at Kingsley Napley specialising in contentious estates and trusts, about a composite case study that illustrates the type of situation families increasingly find themselves in when a loved one chooses to end their life at Dignitas. The case — a fictionalised account built from the patterns Sophie and Laura see in practice — follows Robert and Carol Hartley, and shows how a decision made out of love can expose a family to criminal investigation, contested estate proceedings, and months of distress at the worst possible time.

The Hartley facts

Robert Hartley, 67, was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in early 2022. After a relatively slow initial progression, his condition deteriorated significantly around 18 months later. Without his wife Carol's knowledge, Robert researched Dignitas online, made contact, and was accepted, with appointment dates provided. Carol — Robert's wife in a second marriage — supported his wish to die at Dignitas: she booked flights and a hotel and accompanied him to Switzerland, since he was unable to travel alone. Robert died peacefully and was cremated in Switzerland. At his express request, his children from his first marriage were kept uninformed throughout, because he feared they would intervene.

Around ten days after Carol returned to England, police contacted her following an anonymous complaint questioning Robert's capacity. Carol was investigated for assisting or encouraging suicide, an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. There was a home visit and an interview under caution, and Carol gave a full statement. The police eventually took no further action — but the process lasted months and caused significant distress, and Carol had not taken independent legal advice before travelling. Separately, the estate — which included a French property and a joint investment portfolio — became contested when Robert's adult children raised the forfeiture rule. Carol had not realised that a criminal conviction is not required for forfeiture to potentially apply. Relief was eventually granted, but only after contested, costly and distressing proceedings.

The criminal risk: a fact-specific test

As Sophie Wood explains, section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 creates an offence of doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting a person's suicide or attempted suicide. There is no statutory defence, and the maximum sentence is 14 years' imprisonment. What actually counts as “encouraging or assisting” is genuinely fact-specific, and the courts have grappled with it directly. In Ninian (2019), a wife who helped her husband travel to Switzerland — despite initially opposing his decision — was found to have acted in a way capable of assisting his suicide, even though she did so out of love. In Morris (2024), by contrast, the court found that merely accompanying someone to Dignitas does not automatically amount to encouragement or assistance; there, family members who were present throughout had consistently urged the person not to go through with it, and were found to have been comforters rather than encouragers.

Carol's position, Sophie notes, sits closer to Ninian than Morris — she carried out acts, such as booking travel, that were capable of assisting. Even so, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service approach these cases with particular sensitivity. The CPS applies a two-stage test: whether there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, and, even where there is, whether prosecution is in the public interest. Factors weighing against prosecution include acting out of pure compassion and clear evidence that the deceased had reached a voluntary, settled decision. Critically, as the Hartley case shows, a decision not to prosecute does not mean there was no risk — Carol still endured months of investigation before that outcome was reached.

The civil risk: forfeiture

Laura Phillips explains that the Forfeiture Act 1982 embodies a public policy principle: someone who has unlawfully aided, abetted, counselled or procured a death should not benefit from the deceased's estate. Crucially, no criminal conviction is required for the forfeiture rule to apply. The Act does give the court discretion to grant relief, taking into account factors such as the deceased's own wishes and testamentary intentions, the size of the estate, and the underlying moral question of whether it is really in anyone's interest to prevent a person from inheriting because they booked a flight at their spouse's request. In the Hartley scenario, the international dimension — a French property alongside UK assets — added further complexity, since relief granted in England is not automatically recognised elsewhere; separate advice is often needed in each relevant jurisdiction.

Would the Assisted Dying Bill change this?

Laura notes that the Assisted Dying Bill currently before Parliament would not resolve these issues even if passed. Its scope is limited to those with a life expectancy of six months or less, requiring two doctors' assessments and judicial sign-off, with capacity as a central safeguard. But the Bill does not address overseas travel to clinics like Dignitas, and — notably — it contains no requirement that family members be notified of the decision, which some commentators argue leaves more vulnerable or isolated individuals without adequate protection. For families like the Hartleys, the criminal and civil risks explored in this case study would remain live regardless of the Bill's progress.

Taking proactive advice

Both advisers stress that the earlier families take advice, the better protected they are. On the criminal side, Sophie recommends engaging lawyers as soon as a loved one's wish becomes known, so that witness statements can be prepared in advance, independent legal advice can be arranged for the person travelling — which also demonstrates an absence of undue influence — and, where appropriate, proactive contact with police on return can weigh against prosecution. On the civil side, Laura recommends reviewing how assets and testamentary wishes are documented before any steps are taken, considering contractual arrangements such as life insurance and pension death benefits that may exclude death by suicide, and seeking local advice in every jurisdiction where assets are held. Because Kingsley Napley's criminal and private client teams work jointly from the outset, families are spared having to navigate separate, disconnected legal processes at what is already the most difficult of times.

This case study is a composite, illustrative scenario for discussion purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.