Claire Palmer and Bobby Talalay successfully defend claim brought by a person suspected of assisting a suicide in Switzerland

Bobby Talalay appeared for the First Defendant, the Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police (DPP), and Claire Palmer appeared for the Second Defendant, the Chief Constable of South Wales Police (SWP), in a trial held in the first week of March 2026 in Cardiff. The Claimant had been arrested for assisting a suicide under s.2 of the Suicide Act 1961 after she had acted as a travelling companion of a lady who had travelled to Switzerland to die at Dignitas. The claims against both Defendants were dismissed and the Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendants’ costs.

On 14 February 2022, the Claimant, along with another person, travelled to Dignitas in Switzerland with a tetraplegic lady (SJ) with the object of SJ there committing suicide. On 16 February 2022, following her return to the UK after SJ’s death, the Claimant was arrested and then detained by officers of SWP in her home in Wales. This arose following a request for assistance made by an officer of DPP, which was the force conducting the primary investigation of those suspected of assisting SJ in committing suicide.

The claim against DPP was brought pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and art.8 ECHR that (a) it was not necessary to transfer the information to SWP to request assistance with the Claimant’s arrest at all or (b) in the alternative, the amount of information transferred was inadequate. This is thought to be the first DPA/ECHR trial concerning an arrest enquiry made by one police force to another where it is not alleged that the information transferred was inaccurate. The Judge dismissed the claim, holding that (a) the task for the Court under the DPA and art.8 were identical and (b) applying in R (Elgizouli) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 2516 (Admin) and O’Hara v Chief Constable of the RUC [1997] AC 286, the task for the Court was to ask whether the information transferred was necessary and sufficient for the task of SWP officers to conduct an arrest and that all that was needed for that task to be lawful was for sufficient information to be transferred for the arresting officer to exercise their discretion as to whether or not to arrest. In this case, the Judge considered that the transfer was necessary and the information provided sufficient for that task.

The claim against SWP was one of false imprisonment, trespass and assault and is understood to be the first claim concerning an arrest under s.2 of the 1961 Act. The Claimant conceded that the arresting officer held a reasonable suspicion of guilt, but challenged the necessity of the arrest. The Judge held that the arrest was reasonably necessary in order to search the Claimant’s property, to prevent collusion with outstanding additional suspects, and to allow for the Claimant and the other arrested person to be questioned separately and at the same time. The Judge concluded that the ACPO guidelines did not mean arrest could never be necessary in an offence of assisted suicide. Notwithstanding the Claimant’s good character and age, the Judge rejected her arguments that the matter could be dealt with by way of a voluntary interview and a request to provide relevant evidence.

Claire Palmer was instructed on behalf of the Chief Constable of South Wales Police.

Bobby Talalay was instructed on behalf of the Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys Police.