Fifteen years ago I was working on the issue of assisted suicide for a UK charity.

Along with many others, we were concerned that the law was being changed before our eyes, not through primary legislation but through the backdoor.

And the person at the centre of the debate, the person who back then was accused of seeking to circumvent the law, was the newly appointed Director of Public Prosecutions — a man by the name of Keir Starmer.

Starmer became Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in November 2008 and just one month later, he made his first high-profile decision as DPP. It was a decision not to prosecute an assisted suicide case despite sufficient evidence to do so.

The case involved Daniel James — a young man who was tragically paralysed in a rugby accident and whose parents helped him commit suicide. 

The law seemed clear but the newly appointed DPP chose not to enforce it.

An article reports at the time: “Starmer’s decision is a significant step towards official recognition that the law criminalising assisted suicide, which has not been changed since 1961, will not be acted upon by prosecuting authorities in cases of terminal or other serious illness. However, it falls short of the change to the law that campaigners demand.”

Many articles reporting on Starmer’s activity during this time period include references to a possible change in the law, and Starmer himself said in response to the James case: “If the law is changed it may bring greater clarity, but it’s a matter of speculation as to what any change would be. Whether there is to be a change in the law is a matter for Parliament not for me.”

In 2009, the case of Debbie Purdy went to the House of Lords (now Supreme Court), following which the court ordered Starmer to issue guidelines “identifying the facts and circumstances which he will take into account in deciding … whether or not to consent to a prosecution under section 2(1) of the 1961 [Suicide] Act.”

Ahead of the official guidelines, Starmer sat down for his first public interview with The Guardian — a self-described “love-in” according to the journalist. The interview was dominated by the topic of assisted suicide and one line sticks out: “it is clear that [Starmer’s guidelines] will give the green light to the compassionate partner of someone who does want to die.”

In the interview, Starmer again turned to the idea of changing the law, adding: “As for legalising assisted suicide altogether, that really is a matter for parliament.”

Another line sticks out: “Critics have complained Starmer is effectively legalising assisted suicide.”

In 2010, Starmer released the official guidelines, titled “Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide.” The Guardian reported at the time: “Campaigners for the right to die welcomed the initial guidelines and called for the government to legislate on the issue.”

Another line sticks out: “Critics have complained Starmer is effectively legalising assisted suicide.”

One of those critics was the disability rights charity, Scope, which said at the time, “as a charity which supports thousands of disabled people with complex support needs, we are very concerned about the potential impact of the DPP’s new guidelines on assisted suicide.”

On the other hand, Dignity in Dying — the lobby group that has almost singlehandedly ensured the issue of assisted suicide and euthanasia never goes away — hailed the guidelines as a “victory” and referred to Starmer’s work as “a significant breakthrough for choice and control at the end of life.”

Dignity in Dying immediately pivoted from Starmer’s actions as DPP to possible new legislation, adding: “Dignity in Dying will continue to fight for a change in the law.”

What can we take from this brief history? 

Starmer’s first major decision in public office was to not prosecute an assisted suicide case despite sufficient evidence to do so. 

Starmer’s first public interview was dominated by the topic of assisted suicide. 

Starmer’s guidance on assisted suicide was among the first official policies he published as DPP. 

Additionally, Starmer has spoken about wanting to see the law changed for many years. And yet, despite being leader of the Labour Party and despite committing to parliamentary time on the issue, his party manifesto did not mention assisted suicide. 

Instead, a private member’s bill appeared that was sponsored by Kim Leadbeater MP — someone who has no long term pedigree of actively campaigning on the issue. 

What we do know about Kim Leadbeater MP is that out of 458 MPs who entered the annual ballot to sponsor a bill of their choosing, she was the first name to be drawn.

We must put up more political resistance before Britain can host its first act of legal assisted suicide.