"Gardaí thwarted a planned trip to Dignitas"

MaxWig

Hi all,

Probably a very simple explanation, but I'm at a loss when reading the tragic case of a woman who was recently cleared of assisting her friend's suicide.

How exactly can the Gardaí thwart a trip abroad, regardless of the destination?

plodder

MaxWig wrote: »

Hi all,

Probably a very simple explanation, but I'm at a loss when reading the tragic case of a woman who was recently cleared of assisting her friend's suicide.

How exactly can the Gardaí thwart a trip abroad, regardless of the destination?

Section 2(2) of the Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993:

Suicide.


2.—(1) Suicide shall cease to be a crime.


(2) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

The offence is the assistance of another person, not travelling per-se.

MaxWig

plodder wrote: »

Section 2(2) of the Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993:


The offence is the assistance of another person, not travelling per-se.

Thanks Plodder, but how can the gardaí stop anyone travelling anywhere.

Can they stop someone travelling to Amsterdam if they believe they are going for the purposes of using the service of a prostitute?

Pawwed Rig

It is similar to the abortion issue I guess. We had to have a referendum to give girls the 'right' to travel to get an abortion. Before that they could be prevented. I would have thought at this stage the right to travel was all encompassing but apparently not.

On a similar point point if we were aware that someone was travelling to Thailand to engage in underage sex I am not sure too many people would be upset if they were prevented.

MaxWig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is similar to the abortion issue I guess. We had to have a referendum to give girls the 'right' to travel to get an abortion. Before that they could be prevented. I would have thought at this stage the right to travel was all encompassing but apparently not.

On a similar point point if we were aware that someone was travelling to Thailand to engage in underage sex I am not sure too many people would be upset if they were prevented.

Sure, but presumably in that instance the Thai authorities would be of a similar view.

plodder

MaxWig wrote: »

Thanks Plodder, but how can the gardaí stop anyone travelling anywhere.

Can they stop someone travelling to Amsterdam if they believe they are going for the purposes of using the service of a prostitute?

I'm sure a lawyer will explain the mechanics better than me, but I think the above is what provides the legal basis in this case, as opposed to going to Amsterdam to buy drugs maybe (afaik paying for sex is not actually illegal in Ireland).

But, maybe if you admitted to a garda at Dublin Airport, you were going to Amsterdam to buy drugs, then he could stop you. I actually don't know.

MrWalsh

Is this not a bit "thought crime" - the person has not committed any crime before or even during the travel. And if the thing that they travel to do is legal in the country they are travelling to - then no crime has been committed there either.

Are we saying that the Irish Guards have the power to prosecute for things done in a jurisdiction where it is legal to do them before the person even goes to the place in question?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

plodder

Just being devil's advocate here:

MrWalsh wrote: »

Is this not a bit "thought crime" - the person has not committed any crime before or even during the travel. And if the thing that they travel to do is legal in the country they are travelling to - then no crime has been committed there either.

It depends I think. Being charged with "counselling" someone might be a thought crime, but buying plane tickets to Zurich and intending to travel with them would be "aiding and abetting" which is more than a thought crime.

MrWalsh

plodder wrote: »

Just being devil's advocate here:

It depends I think. Being charged with "counselling" someone might be a thought crime, but buying plane tickets to Zurich and intending to travel with them would be "aiding and abetting" which is more than a thought crime.

Why though? The person could arrive at Dignitas and change their mind. Up until the point they commit suicide no crime has been committed. Even if they commit suicide, no crime has been committed in Switzerland.

We dont generally charge people with aiding and abetting a murder if no murder has taken place.

seamus

I recall this came up in the media at the actual time that it happened, I think there were debates on Joe Duffy and the like (bearing in mind that Ms Forde was still alive at this stage and no charges pending, so no chance of subjudice).

The two women had attended the travel agents to make their booking and by all accounts at least one of them had talked quite freely about their plans and why they were going. They seemed unaware that what they were doing was potentially an offence.

Now, you could say that the travel agent should have minded their own business, and I tend to agree. But there's a quandry for them. If the suicide is discovered and it comes back to the travel agent, they could potentially find themselves in court for failing to report it. It's a longshot and Rathgar Travel will never get any business from me, but I can understand why someone might feel that it's best to report it and avoid any doubt.

The OP is correct - Gardai cannot prevent anyone from travelling. And at the time this was quite clearly stated to the two women. What the Gardai did was warn Ms. O'Rorke that if they did travel to Switzerland and Ms. Forde died, then Ms. O'Rorke would be arrested and charged upon returning to Ireland.

Not wanting to get her friend into trouble, Ms. Forde called it off.

Why though? The person could arrive at Dignitas and change their mind. Up until the point they commit suicide no crime has been committed. Even if they commit suicide, no crime has been committed in Switzerland.

We dont generally charge people with aiding and abetting a murder if no murder has taken place.

Intent, intent, intent.

There was no charge after they cancelled their trip because it would be impossible to prove that Ms. Forde intended to commit suicide while she was still alive. Once she actually had committed suicide, there was some cause there to say that yes, she intended to commit suicide.

Sham Squire

seamus wrote: »

I recall this came up in the media at the actual time that it happened, I think there were debates on Joe Duffy and the like (bearing in mind that Ms Forde was still alive at this stage and no charges pending, so no chance of subjudice).

The two women had attended the travel agents to make their booking and by all accounts at least one of them had talked quite freely about their plans and why they were going. They seemed unaware that what they were doing was potentially an offence.

Now, you could say that the travel agent should have minded their own business, and I tend to agree. But there's a quandry for them. If the suicide is discovered and it comes back to the travel agent, they could potentially find themselves in court for failing to report it. It's a longshot and Rathgar Travel will never get any business from me, but I can understand why someone might feel that it's best to report it and avoid any doubt.

The OP is correct - Gardai cannot prevent anyone from travelling. And at the time this was quite clearly stated to the two women. What the Gardai did was warn Ms. O'Rorke that if they did travel to Switzerland and Ms. Forde died, then Ms. O'Rorke would be arrested and charged upon returning to Ireland.

Not wanting to get her friend into trouble, Ms. Forde called it off.

Thanks for the explanation. My blood was boiling at the idea they could pre-emptively prevent you from leaving the country if you planned to commit a crime. That's the kind of thing I expect from North Korea not Ireland.

plodder

MrWalsh wrote: »

Why though? The person could arrive at Dignitas and change their mind. Up until the point they commit suicide no crime has been committed. Even if they commit suicide, no crime has been committed in Switzerland.

We dont generally charge people with aiding and abetting a murder if no murder has taken place.

Good point.

plodder

seamus wrote: »

The OP is correct - Gardai cannot prevent anyone from travelling.

So, how is this different from the X case, where the state actively tried to prevent someone from travelling?

Or to be more specific, why did the Attorney General think he had a right to injunct the girl from travelling?

seamus

plodder wrote: »

So, how is this different from the X case, where the state actively tried to prevent someone from travelling?

Or to be more specific, why did the Attorney General think he had a right to injunct the girl from travelling?

Probably on two counts:

1. The child in question was a ward of the state, and as such the state had a right to prevent her travelling

2. The state recognised abortion itself as a crime and therefore believed it had the right to block travel in the case where someone intended to commit a crime.

In this case, suicide is not a crime therefore you cannot block someone from travelling for suicide.

MrWalsh

seamus wrote: »

Intent, intent, intent.

There was no charge after they cancelled their trip because it would be impossible to prove that Ms. Forde intended to commit suicide while she was still alive. Once she actually had committed suicide, there was some cause there to say that yes, she intended to commit suicide.

Yes but in court she was being charged for assisting in those travel arrangements for travel that they in fact cancelled after the Guards had been called.

So Im still not clear on how that was a valid charge in court? The suicide didnt happen as a result of travel arrangements assisted by Ms O Rorke, those travel arrangements were cancelled, so how was she charged for them at all?

Peregrinus

In the X case, the AG's attempt to prevent X from travelling was an attempt to vindicate the constitutional right to life of X's unborn child. Constitutionally, the State has a duty to vindicate personal rights, and the AG of the time thought this was the way to do it. (The Supreme Court, of course, disagreed.)

In this case, it never got to an injunction because the proposed trip was called off. Had the pair persisted with the trip, I don't know whether it would have come to an injunction, but I doubt it. (As in, I doubt that the authorities would have sought an injunction, and I doubt that if they sought one it would have been granted.)

Dom84

seamus wrote: »

if they did travel to Switzerland and Ms. Forde died, then Ms. O'Rorke would be arrested and charged upon returning to Ireland.

Charged with what though?

Little CuChulainn

Dom84 wrote: »

Charged with what though?

It's in the second post on the thread.

seamus

MrWalsh wrote: »

So Im still not clear on how that was a valid charge in court? The suicide didnt happen as a result of travel arrangements assisted by Ms O Rorke, those travel arrangements were cancelled, so how was she charged for them at all?

Because she eventually did commit suicide. So obviously the DPP reckoned that was good enough to prove that there was sufficient intent in the original trip.

The jury seems to have quite correctly disagreed - no suicide, no aiding.

My impression though is that the two headline charges in this case were the one in relation to the procurement of barbituates, and the travel one was tacked on to strengthen the case (or possibly intimidate her into a plea bargain). Once the two big charges were struck out by the Judge, the third was on exceptionally shaky ground.

Peregrinus

MrWalsh wrote: »

Yes but in court she was being charged for assisting in those travel arrangements for travel that they in fact cancelled after the Guards had been called.

So Im still not clear on how that was a valid charge in court? The suicide didnt happen as a result of travel arrangements assisted by Ms O Rorke, those travel arrangements were cancelled, so how was she charged for them at all?

It's not just an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure a suicide; it's also an offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure an attempt by another to commit suicide. The trip to Switzerland was an attempt to commit suicide which was thwarted by the intervention of the Guards; the defendant was accused of aiding, abetting, etc that attempt.

(Yes, it's a bit of a stretch. And of course we know she was acquitted. The whole Switzerland proposal was aborted at such an early stage that it's hard to identify it as an "attempt" to commit suicide. Presumably - I don't know this, but I assume it - Dignitas has certain ethical standards, and these involve counselling, waiting periods, etc, followed by confirmation of consent. I don't know that anybody's attempting to commit suicide by embarking on a process which involves counselling which may well result in their deciding not to commit suicide.)

plodder

seamus wrote: »

Probably on two counts:

1. The child in question was a ward of the state, and as such the state had a right to prevent her travelling

Ok

2. The state recognised abortion itself as a crime and therefore believed it had the right to block travel in the case where someone intended to commit a crime.

and that was rejected ultimately, because abortion in that specific case was deemed not to be a crime.

In this case, suicide is not a crime therefore you cannot block someone from travelling for suicide.

But, counselling, aiding and abetting someone to procure a suicide is a crime. Is it just a question of evidence rather than principle? ie. the evidence is pretty clear after the suicide, but in doubt before hand.

Though, I see X was different because of point 1. anyway.

sbsquarepants

How is it even possible to be a crime to help someone carry out a non criminal act?

MrWalsh

Thanks seamus and Peregrinus, that does make it a lot clearer.

All they have managed to do is show people what not to do when trying to make travel arrangements to Dignitas, ie, do not speak to the travel agent about what you are doing.

plodder

MrWalsh wrote: »

Thanks seamus and Peregrinus, that does make it a lot clearer.

All they have managed to do is show people what not to do when trying to make travel arrangements to Dignitas, ie, do not speak to the travel agent about what you are doing.

Yes, but that doesn't absolve everyone of difficulty afterwards when a death cert from Zurich turns up. Would the same issue arise with probate for instance?

seamus

plodder wrote: »

Ok

and that was rejected ultimately, because abortion in that specific case was deemed not to be a crime.

But, counselling, aiding and abetting someone to procure a suicide is a crime. Is it just a question of evidence rather than principle? ie. the evidence is pretty clear after the suicide, but in doubt before hand.

But until a suicide occurs, there is no crime.

As has been mentioned above, it is a little bit thought-crimey, and whether you could functionally block an adult from travelling before they've committed any crime is a matter for debate. As in, on what grounds are you detaining someone from travelling, if they haven't done anything?

For example, if someone was travelling to abuse children, or execute someone, you could stop them and arrest them, since you don't have to have actually murdered someone or abused a child to have committed a crime.
But in this case, without a suicide, there is no crime.

I suppose you're right about the X case, but there would be an additional argument there in relation to the protection of the life of the unborn. Perhaps the courts at the time felt they had a constitutional obligation to protect the unborn by preventing the mother from travelling. In the same way that you can get a court order to keep a child in the country if you feel it is for that child's protection.

Peregrinus

Well, nobody was "detained from travelling" in this case. They chose not to travel when the possible legal consequences were pointed out. As I said above, had they persisted, I doubt that there would have been any attempt to prevent them from travelling.

And it's not true to say that until a suicide occurs, there is no crime. Counselling and procuring any act necessarily occur before the act itself occurs, and they are (in this and in some other circumstances) crimes.

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

And it's not true to say that until a suicide occurs, there is no crime. Counselling and procuring any act necessarily occur before the act itself occurs, and they are (in this and in some other circumstances) crimes.

In this case though the question comes up because it's a crime only if a suicide is procured or attempted.

If there is no attempt (as in this case where their trip was called off), there is no crime.

Say, for the sake of argument that the Gardai weren't involved but the two women decided to call it off when they arrived in Switzerland. Is there still a crime? Was suicide attempted?

Little CuChulainn

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How is it even possible to be a crime to help someone carry out a non criminal act?

Could be to prevent someone hiding a murder as a suicide or, more likely, to prevent them taking advantage of someone in a vulnerable position for personal gain.

galljga1

Sham Squire wrote: »

Thanks for the explanation. My blood was boiling at the idea they could pre-emptively prevent you from leaving the country if you planned to commit a crime. That's the kind of thing I expect from North Korea not Ireland.

Squire, have you not seen Minority Report?

"Give me back the Berlin wall
give me Stalin and St Paul
I've seen the future, brother:
it is murder"

MrWalsh

seamus wrote: »

For example, if someone was travelling to abuse children, or execute someone, you could stop them and arrest them, since you don't have to have actually murdered someone or abused a child to have committed a crime.

What is the crime in this case? If it is just an idea in someones head how is it a crime?

Wanderer78

assisted suicide is a very complicated problem. we obviously havent figured out how to deal with it yet

seamus

MrWalsh wrote: »

What is the crime in this case? If it is just an idea in someones head how is it a crime?

Conspiracy and incitement to commit a crime. I believe some crimes are absolute and not jurisidiction-dependent, though I'm not clear on that.

Suicide is special. Since suicide itself is not a crime, incitement to commit suicide or conspiracy to commit suicide, cannot be crimes.

sbsquarepants

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Could be to prevent someone hiding a murder as a suicide or, more likely, to prevent them taking advantage of someone in a vulnerable position for personal gain.

I can see where you're coming from but there are laws against murder already. If someone is of sound mind and can (as was the case here) quite clearly state that they are not being coerced into anything, how can it be illegal to merely help a friend do something which is not illegal for them to do alone. It is an absolutely idiotic state of affairs which makes absolutely no sense.

seamus

I suspect the law is a product of its time. Suicide was decriminalised in 1993, the same year as homosexuality. It was a time when old Ireland was being brought kicking and screaming into the 20th century, but the catholic church still had a strong grip on politics and wasn't going to give it up without a fight.

So I suspect in the interests of appeasing a number of "concerned parties", a rider was added to the decriminalisation of suicide that aimed to effectively make it a criminal offence to discuss suicide openly and instead keep it locked up as a shameful and unspoken matter.

No doubt worry was expressed by some in the Dail at the time that with suicide decriminalised there would be people offering free cyanide on every street corner and "suicide parties" every weekend.

sbsquarepants

I see, is it illegal to help your friend be gay?
I'm not quite sure what might constitute helping in this case and I don't want to end up in court!:D

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

Conspiracy and incitement to commit a crime. I believe some crimes are absolute and not jurisidiction-dependent, though I'm not clear on that.

Suicide is special. Since suicide itself is not a crime, incitement to commit suicide or conspiracy to commit suicide, cannot be crimes.

'Course they can. Subject to fairly broad constitutional constraints, the legislature can make anything a crime, and they have specifically make aiding, counselling, procuring, etc suicide a crime. Ireland is hardly the only country to have decriminalised suicide while maintaining an offence of assisting suicide in one way or another.

Whether you agree with the policy behind that or not, it's pretty clear that there are policy reasons behind it. There is an obvious risk that vulnerable people may be steered towards suicide by others who have a financial or personal interest in that person dying.

(For what it's worth, sedition is another example of a crime which consists of encouraging behaviour which is not itself criminal. It's not a crime to regard the state or its political instutions with hatred or contempt, and never has been, but inciting others to so so was, until 2009, the crime of sedition. And sedition is still a crime in many common-law jurisdictions.)

recedite

I wonder would it be a reasonable defence for the friend to travel to Switzerland separately, on a later flight, which they had booked independently. This would be for the purposes of providing comfort at the time of the suicide, rather than any actual assistance.
The friend would of course have prior knowledge of the suicide, but having knowledge itself is not a crime.
Failure to report the intentions of the suicidist cannot be a crime either, because suicide itself is not a crime.
The friend would have to avoid the following four specific actions; aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide.

(1) Suicide shall cease to be a crime.
(2) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I wonder would it be a reasonable defence for the friend to travel to Switzerland separately, on a later flight, which they had booked independently. This would be for the purposes of providing comfort at the time of the suicide, rather than any actual assistance. The friend would of course have prior knowledge of the suicide, but having knowledge itself is not a crime.

Hmm. I think you make a false distinction between "comfort" and "actual assistance". Comfort can be a very real assistance, particularly in facing a very challenging situation. There's nothing in the wording of the act to confine "aiding" or "abetting" to material assistance.

Though, in practice, booking and travelling separately might provide you with a fair degree of protection, since it makes it much less likely that your assistance will become known to the authorities or, if it becomes known, that they will be able to assemble the evidence needed to prosecute you.

recedite wrote: »

Failure to report the intentions of the suicidist cannot be a crime either, because suicide itself is not a crime.

Yes. They could of course make failure to report an intended suicide a crime, but they haven't.

recedite wrote: »

The friend would have to avoid the following four specific actions; aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide.

Those four terms strike me as quite general, rather than specific. Other than purely negative things (like not telling others of an intended suicide, or not attempting to persuade someone to change their mind) I can't think offhand of any kind of assistance or support that you could render that wouldn't come under the heading of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.

We need legislation to allow for cases like this. Simple, sensible, compassionate legislation. We won't get it, of course.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

We need legislation to allow for cases like this. Simple, sensible, compassionate legislation. We won't get it, of course.

This is an area where legislation which is sensible or compassionate is rarely simple.

Johnboy1951

recedite wrote: »

I wonder would it be a reasonable defence for the friend to travel to Switzerland separately, on a later flight, which they had booked independently. This would be for the purposes of providing comfort at the time of the suicide, rather than any actual assistance.
The friend would of course have prior knowledge of the suicide, but having knowledge itself is not a crime.
Failure to report the intentions of the suicidist cannot be a crime either, because suicide itself is not a crime.
The friend would have to avoid the following four specific actions; aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide.

Another I wondered about is .....

I report to the authorities that my friend intends investigate the options to commit suicide, and tell them I intend to be present at the event, if it takes place, to say goodbye.

My friend travels on a later flight than mine, and I am there to meet them at the airport.

The suicide is carried out on foreign soil where it is legal, under strict controls and guidelines requiring no assistance, physical or otherwise from me.

I return home.

What charges are likely to be brought against me?

I would think none.

One eyed Jack

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Another I wondered about is .....

I report to the authorities that my friend intends investigate the options to commit suicide, and tell them I intend to be present at the event, if it takes place, to say goodbye.

My friend travels on a later flight than mine, and I am there to meet them at the airport.

The suicide is carried out on foreign soil where it is legal, under strict controls and guidelines requiring no assistance, physical or otherwise from me.

I return home.

What charges are likely to be brought against me?

I would think none.

You and your friend wouldn't even have to travel abroad in that case as a person choosing to die by suicide isn't a crime here - ie. A person may take their own life, but another person taking their life may face criminal charges as that person took a life that wasn't theirs to take.

Peregrinus

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Another I wondered about is .....

I report to the authorities that my friend intends investigate the options to commit suicide, and tell them I intend to be present at the event, if it takes place, to say goodbye.

My friend travels on a later flight than mine, and I am there to meet them at the airport.

The suicide is carried out on foreign soil where it is legal, under strict controls and guidelines requiring no assistance, physical or otherwise from me.

I return home.

What charges are likely to be brought against me?

I would think none.

I would also think none.

In fact, if the events you describe occurred in Ireland, I would still think you would not be charged. Simply being present at a suicide is not an offence. You'd have to be offering some kind of aid, assistance or support. To succeed in any prosecution, the state would have to show that your simple presence was a moral support to the deceased in the act of suicide. Since the deceased isn't going to give evidence about that, obviously, and presumably neither are you, I'd think a conviction would be difficult.

Plus, the fact that you told the guards in advance strongly suggests that you weren't keen to support the choice of suicide. If you were, you'd have kept schtumm. By telling the guards, you created the risk that there would be some intervention which would prevent or dissuade the suicide.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

I suspect the law is a product of its time. Suicide was decriminalised in 1993, the same year as homosexuality. It was a time when old Ireland was being brought kicking and screaming into the 20th century, but the catholic church still had a strong grip on politics and wasn't going to give it up without a fight.

The law is OK for classic suicide. If I went to web sites for, say, anorexic vulnerable girls and suggested suicide and assisted in it, I would and should be guilty of a crime.

The position for end of life suicide, where the person has taken the choice for logical reasons in a thoughtful manner is different. We need legislation for this - simple legislation - the person makes a declaration in the same manner as a will or to a court officer/registrar.. and then makes the practical arrangements with somebody medically qualified. The actual event can take place anywhere, either alone, or at a party with their closest friends.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

The position for end of life suicide, where the person has taken the choice for logical reasons in a thoughtful manner is different. We need legislation for this - simple legislation - the person makes a declaration in the same manner as a will or to a court officer/registrar.. and then makes the practical arrangements with somebody medically qualified. The actual event can take place anywhere, either alone, or at a party with their closest friends.

It's not that simple, DrDonkey. There can be no assumption that people approaching the end of life are acting for "logical reasons" or "in a thoughtful manner". A moment's thought shows that this is a hugely stressful time, with people confronting realities that, in some cases, they have spent much of their life avoiding, and they are subject to all kinds of stresses, pressures, fears and emotions. If ever there was a circumstance in which you would not default to an assumption that people act for logical reasons and in a thoughtful manner, this is it.

And, to complicate matters further, in the particular case we are talking about, if I recall correctly there was no evidence that Bernadette Forde was at "end of life" stage. She suffered from MS, which is incurable, but you can live for many, many years with MS, and the majority of MS sufferers in fact die of something else. Ms Forde was wheelchair-bound, and had lost her own sister to cancer, and these seem to have been the factors which led her to decide to take her own life. But she wasn't actively dying; she wasn't in what doctors or palliative care specialists would consider to be an end-of-life stage.

I'm not saying this to devalue or delegitimise the decision she took; just to point out that what is being presented here as a simple matter is not a simple matter at all. In your desire for a simple regime, you have proposed a regime that Bernadette Forde could not have availed of.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not saying this to devalue or delegitimise the decision she took; just to point out that what is being presented here as a simple matter is not a simple matter at all.

It is quite simple except when people wish to complicate it. Belgium, for example, has a system in place which is well accepted.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

It is quite simple except when people wish to complicate it. Belgium, for example, has a system in place which is well accepted.

Well, the Belgian system is not the system you advocate. It's quite different. And, for the record, the Belgian system is not "well accepted" in the sense of being uncontroversial, or of operating in a way that is generally regarded as satisfactory.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Though, in practice, booking and travelling separately might provide you with a fair degree of protection, since it makes it much less likely that your assistance will become known to the authorities or, if it becomes known, that they will be able to assemble the evidence needed to prosecute you.

The purpose of separate booking and travelling would be to prove that the suicidist had made the journey "under their own steam" and that they were capable of carrying through the actual logistics of getting to Switzerland unassisted. Not for the purposes of hiding anything.
On arrival in Switzerland, the Swiss Dignitas organisation would quite legally provide all the assistance required.
If the Irish friend showed up then in Switzerland to say goodbye, it could not reasonably be argued that any comfort they were giving could have a material affect on the outcome of the events. I'm inclined to think that "aiding and abetting" is legally different to "standing idly by" in the sense that it has some material affect, as opposed to the position of being neutral but "in the loop".

If the Irish friend had previously reported to the Gardai the suicidal intentions of the other person, then I suppose that would copper-fasten the defence. The Gardai would have no power to prevent the suicidist from travelling, provided they were travelling alone.

Unfortunately all this would not be much use to the most "genuine cases" whose physical condition was such that they really needed assistance to travel. Hence the law is currently lacking in compassion.

Johnboy1951

recedite wrote: »

The purpose of separate booking and travelling would be to prove that the suicidist had made the journey "under their own steam" and that they were capable of carrying through the actual logistics of getting to Switzerland unassisted. Not for the purposes of hiding anything.
On arrival in Switzerland, the Swiss Dignitas organisation would quite legally provide all the assistance required.
If the Irish friend showed up then in Switzerland to say goodbye, it could not reasonably be argued that any comfort they were giving could have a material affect on the outcome of the events. I'm inclined to think that "aiding and abetting" is legally different to "standing idly by" in the sense that it has some material affect, as opposed to the position of being neutral but "in the loop".

If the Irish friend had previously reported to the Gardai the suicidal intentions of the other person, then I suppose that would copper-fasten the defence. The Gardai would have no power to prevent the suicidist from travelling, provided they were travelling alone.

Unfortunately all this would not be much use to the most "genuine cases" whose physical condition was such that they really needed assistance to travel. Hence the law is currently lacking in compassion.

If the 'suicidist' employed a helper/assistant to assist in travelling (which as you point out is often necessary for people with disability) I doubt that the authorities could successfully accuse the assistant of helping in the act of suicide.

seamus

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

If the 'suicidist' employed a helper/assistant to assist in travelling (which as you point out is often necessary for people with disability) I doubt that the authorities could successfully accuse the assistant of helping in the act of suicide.

If they could prove that the assistant knew of the purpose of the trip - and of course that suicide was the purpose of the trip - you most certainly could accuse them of assisting a suicide.

There is an argument though in terms of what constitutes "assisting". Doing them a favour and collecting the tickets? Perhaps only if the deceased was in some way incapable of collecting the tickets without assistance.
Driving them to the airport? Perhaps. But they could have gotten a taxi.

It's a pretty ridiculous law, there's a reason why there's only been one trial and no convictions in 22 years.