The decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute Daniel James’s parents boosts the case for reform of the law, lawyers and campaigners said yesterday.

Keir Starmer’s decision is not a green light to others who want to help injured or ill relatives to die. But that will be the message taken by some, even though, as his spokesman said: “Each case is considered on its merits. It’s up to people to take what conclusions they want to, but each case is unique.”

Mr Starmer’s predecessor, Sir Ken Macdonald, told The Times in October that any reform of the law was for Parliament, not prosecutors. His stance was backed by the courts in October in the case of Debbie Purdy, the woman with multiple sclerosis who challenged the DPP to outline his policy on when he would prosecute in such cases. Lord Justice Scott-Baker agreed that it was not for the DPP to define or limit the law in that way.

So will the Daniel James case encourage more people to take the same steps? Sarah Wootton, the chief executive of the campaign group Dignity in Dying, thinks so.

She said: “It may well encourage people. But without a proper law that permits assisted suicide, people are more at risk of botched suicides.”

Gary Slapper, Professor of Law at the Open University, said: “It is nonsense for the law to declare . . . \ what amounts to assisting a suicide cannot be defined and we shall simply tell you after the event.”

It may well be that when Ms Purdy comes before the Court of Appeal in the new year, the judges will agree. And then it will be for Parliament to act.

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