Woman escapes conviction after suicide pact in which her husband died
MELBOURNE: A woman who helped her husband of more than 50 years end his life in a suicide pact has been discharged without conviction, in a case an end of life advocate says is “groundbreaking”.
The couple made a pact to die together but while the husband died, the woman survived.
The woman, who has permanent name suppression, appeared in the Nelson District Court in December. Her husband had been diagnosed with a degenerative illness.
Under Section 180 of the Crimes Act when two or more people enter into a suicide pact and one of them does not die, then they are liable to a term of imprisonment for a term of up to five years.
Judge Denys Barry said evidence showed the man was severely disabled and his quality of life was getting worse in an “escalating and exponential fashion”.
The court heard how the man was admitted to hospital last year while awaiting palliative care. He was open with hospital staff about the plan to end his life.
The couple carried out their plan to take their lives together. Their daughter found a note in her parents’ home, written by her mother, who intended it to be read after they had died.
She went to the hospital to find her father had died and her mother was still breathing.
The woman later told police her husband had pleaded with her to help him enact their plan. She was also suffering from a health condition and they had agreed to end their lives together.
A victim impact statement from the couple’s daughter spoke of how she was torn between the situation that had arisen and her own values, as she watched her father descend into a state of pain and degenerating physical condition.
The legal process and criminal charge had added to what was a “virtually unbearable situation”.
When considering the application for a discharge without conviction, Judge Barry said an affidavit from the woman outlined her husband’s deteriorating condition, his suffering and pain as well as her own frailties.
The woman said she felt she had been denied her own death.
She was worried about the effect of a conviction and that publication of the details of the case would “further compound the suffering of her family in the aftermath of this tragedy”.
“She speaks of the prospect that a criminal conviction at her age, with her spotless background, as tainting the remainder of her years.”
In his decision, Judge Barry said the consequences of a conviction would be out of proportion to the gravity of the offending.
“This was not a case of a hasty decision or pressure being applied by [the woman] on her husband, quite the opposite.
“This was about a slowly gestating and unfolding debilitating and excruciating terminal illness foist upon [the man], recognised by him in advance for what it would become, and for which he made his own plan years in advance to have the means to end his life, when he thought the time had come that he was unable to bear life any further.”
Judge Barry accepted a conviction would be an “official state sanctioning” of the woman over the death of her beloved husband which would remain with her for the rest of her life and as such discharged her without conviction.
End-of-Life Choice Society president Mary Panko said the situation was “utterly tragic”.
“This sad case reflects the misery imposed by the current law in New Zealand.
“The ground-breaking decision by the judge to discharge her without conviction shows that the judiciary share the overwhelming public opinion of New Zealanders that a law change is essential to allow terminally ill people to end their lives peacefully and painlessly in the company of their loved ones, family and friends.”
In November, the long-fought End of Life Choice Bill was passed in Parliament.
Panko said a recent poll showed more than 70 per cent of voters supported medical assistance in dying and the society was confident that would be proven at the referendum held alongside this year’s general election in September.
Opposition to the bill has been vocal, of the 39,000 public submissions made on the proposed legislation changes, more than 90 per cent of those were opposed to it.
If endorsed, the new law will allow those who are terminally ill to request assisted dying.
The patient must be the first to suggest assisted dying, two doctors must agree that the patient is well-informed and other legal criteria are met.
Defence lawyer Michael Vesty said the woman had not initiated the suicide pact, it had been her husband’s long-term wish to end his life should his state of health be such that he saw no other alternative. He sought a discharge without conviction for the woman.
The Crown opposed the application not to convict the woman, which prosecutor Sefton Revell said would be “unprecedented” given the circumstances as it dealt with the “deliberate ending of human life”. He acknowledged no other penalty would be warranted.
Vesty said the man had been in a constant state of pain before his death and would have ended his own life if he had the physical ability to do so.
The couple had lived a “good and full life”. The woman had no prior convictions, had been co-operative with police and entered an early guilty plea.
“He was a head-strong man,” Vesty said.
“She was put in the position, really with the impossible choice to support her husband’s wishes or to leave him in pain.”
The woman had endured the consequences of losing her husband, surviving an attempt on her own life, seeing the impact of her husband’s death and the ensuing court case on her family, as well as the loss of her independence.
He said a conviction would not only impact how she was viewed by others, but more importantly how she viewed herself and how her husband was remembered.
Revell said while a conviction may be an “unwarranted stain on her legacy”, it could be sufficiently mitigated by permanent suppression of her name and the identifying details of the case.
“It is not the sort of offending which ultimately we can turn a blind eye to.
“A conviction is not going to have any deterrent effect … it is not there to punish her, it is there to recognise what Parliament currently says is the sanctity of life and what the courts have upheld.”
