Forfeiture, assisted dying, and the Estate of David Walter Peace

With thanks to Méabh Kirby for her part in co-authoring this article. Méabh has now left the firm to pursue pupillage at the Bar.

With the progression of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (commonly known as the Assisted Dying bill) through Parliament, public discourse regarding end of life decisions has shifted, with people becoming increasingly aware of how nuanced this area can be.

As public perception of assisted dying evolves, so too has our understanding of how a long-standing legal principle – the forfeiture rule – interacts with end of life decisions. The recent case of Estate of David Walter Peace offers up another example of how the forfeiture rule might be dealt with when it comes to these kinds of cases.

A quick recap: public policy behind the rule

Under current English law, assisting someone in ending their life remains a criminal offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. But the legal consequences don’t stop there. The Forfeiture Act 1982, when read alongside the Suicide Act, means that anyone who assists in a suicide may also be barred from inheriting from the deceased’s estate. This is known as the forfeiture rule, and it is rooted in the principle that one should not profit from unlawful killing.

There are, of course, strong public policy reasons behind this rule. In the civil proceedings Leeson v McPherson [2024] EWHC 2277 (Ch) for example, the court had no hesitation in finding that Donald McPherson had killed his wife (despite the fact that there had been no conviction in the criminal trial). As a result, he was prevented from receiving any benefit from her estate under the forfeiture rule.

But not all cases are as clear-cut.

Other recent forfeiture cases

In our March 2025 article, we explored how the forfeiture rule can create potentially unintended consequences for cases of assisted dying. In Morris v Morris [2024] and Withers Trust Corporation v Estate of Goodman [2023], the courts were asked to consider whether grieving spouses who had supported their terminally ill partners in seeking assisted death should be disinherited. In both cases, the courts ultimately granted relief from forfeiture, but not without the legal uncertainty, costs and, in the case of the surviving spouse in Morris (who issued the application), the emotional toll of having to go to court.

Reform: the Assisted Dying Bill

The Assisted Dying Bill, currently in its second reading in the House of Lords, will help to address this legal grey area. If passed, it would introduce a regulated framework allowing certain terminally ill adults to seek assistance in dying without triggering criminal liability, and consequently, the forfeiture rule. It will hopefully bring clarity to an area of the law currently marked by ambiguity.

The Estate of David Walter Peace

Forfeiture cases are very rare, but there has been an uptick in the last couple of years. The Estate of David Walter Peace provides a further development.

Mr Peace ended his life at the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland in 2021, accompanied by a close friend who was also a beneficiary under his will. On the surface, this raised the spectre of the forfeiture rule. But in a notable turn, all those standing to benefit under the will – capable and in agreement – asked the court to honour Mr Peace’s wishes to benefit his friend.

In June 2025, the court, without issuing a formal judgment, made an order allowing the executor to distribute the estate according to the will, reasoning that there was no public policy reason to override the consensus reached by the beneficiaries. In fact, the court noted that upholding such agreements, absent the existence of any improper purpose, serves the public interest.

Final thoughts

Between recent cases and incoming legislative reform, it is clear that the tide has turned in favour of a more pragmatic approach being taken to complex end of life decisions.

Still, challenges remain. The Bill has been highly controversial: ethical concerns around the sanctity of life, the potential for undue influence and abuse, the impact on palliative care, and the potential psychological impact on healthcare workers are just a few of the key controversies that have entered public discussion. Further, the Bill in its current form only offers the choice of an assisted death to those with six months to live, meaning any cases that do not meet those requirements will continue to fall within the scope of the forfeiture rule.

For cases that do not satisfy the requirements of the new Bill (once enacted), the Peace case offers a compromise solution to avoid the potentially harsh consequences of the forfeiture rule and the need for expensive court applications. However, where minor or incapacitated beneficiaries are involved, or where there is disagreement between beneficiaries, then court intervention will likely be necessary. Even in cases of consensus like Peace, executors may still need to seek judicial reassurance that public policy does not demand a different outcome.

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.

© Farrer & Co LLP, August 2025