Daniel James was a fiercely independent young man who made his own decision to commit suicide despite his parents’ relentless attempts to change his mind, the Director of Public Prosecutions said yesterday.

Ruling out a prosecution of Mr James’s parents — who arranged for him to travel to Switzerland and were beside him when he died at the Dignitas clinic — the DPP, Keir Starmer, QC, said that the determination of their son to take his own life was a significant factor in his decision.

He said that although the offence was serious and there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, this was outweighed by his belief that doing so would not be in the public interest.

It was the first significant decision by Mr Starmer since he took over as head of the Crown Prosecution Service at the end of October.

In a detailed explanation of how he reached his view, Mr Starmer said: “This is a tragic case, involving as it does the death of a young man in difficult and unique circumstances. While there are public interest factors in favour of prosecution, not least of which is the seriousness of this offence, I have determined that these are outweighed by the public interest factors that say that a prosecution is not needed.”

He added: “In reaching my decision, I have given careful consideration to the code for Crown prosecutors.”

This is the two-stage test applied by prosecutors when deciding whether to prosecute, and takes account of whether sufficient evidence exists and whether the public interest is in favour of taking the case to trial.

Mr Starmer said: “In particular, but not exclusively, I would point to the fact that Daniel, as a fiercely independent young man, was not influenced by his parents to take his own life and the evidence indicates he did so despite their imploring him not to.”

Daniel James, 23, died at a clinic run by Dignitas, an assisted suicide organisation based in Switzerland, on September 12, more than a year after being left paralysed from the chest down in a rugby accident. His medical consultant had concluded that it was unlikely that his condition would ever improve significantly.

The CPS considered charges under the Suicide Act against his parents, Mark and Julie James, from Sinton Green, near Worcester. But yesterday the DPP said that no further action would be taken. Nor would charges be brought against a family friend who had helped with travel arrangements and who was also under investigation.

The offences considered were aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide of another under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

Mr and Mrs James agreed that they had helped their son to send documentation to Dignitas, made payments from their bank account, made travel arrangements to go to Switzerland and accompanied him on the flight.

The DPP said that having looked at their actions, he was clear that the evidential test under the prosecutors’ code was met.

Although neither assisted in the act of suicide itself, he said: “There is, on a purely objective analysis, enough evidence to provide a ‘realistic prospect of conviction’ against Daniel’s parents under the Suicide Act 1961.”

Looking at the “public interest” test, however, the DPP went on to say that aiding and abetting suicide was “unique” in that suicide, was not in itself unlawful, unlike other aiding and abetting offences.

He therefore discounted some of the factors normally considered. Of those that were relevant, he said, one was whether the offence would result in a significant sentence. However, he considered it very unlikely that a court would impose a custodial penalty.

He said that Mr James’s parents were not “ringleaders” or “organisers”. The offence was not premeditated and there were no grounds to believe that it might be repeated.

Mr Starmer said that Mr James’s determination to commit suicide “was not in any way influenced by the conduct or wishes of his parents — on the contrary he proceeded in the teeth of their imploring him not to do so. There is clear evidence that he had attempted to commit suicide on three occasions and that he would have made further attempts if and whenever an opportunity to do so arose.”

Neither Mr and Mrs James, nor the family friend had influenced him; on the contrary, his parents “tried relentlessly to persuade him not to commit suicide”. The DPP concluded: “On that basis I consider that, although Daniel was vulnerable in many senses, he was not vulnerable to manipulation by his parents or the family friend.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure