In the recent case of The Public Trustee of Queensland v The Public Trustee of Queensland [2014] QSC 47, the Supreme Court was faced with a particularly interesting scenario.

The question before the Court was whether the executor and sole beneficiary of a valid will (“Nielsen”), who had been convicted of assisting the testator (“Ward”) to commit suicide, was subject to the common law forfeiture rule.

The forfeiture rule provides that a person responsible for the death of another cannot be allowed to benefit from that other person’s estate. The public policy consideration is obviously that a person who has unlawfully killed another person should not benefit from their victim.

Queensland’s forfeiture legislation does not expressly exclude or include “assisted suicide” within its definition of “unlawful killing”. The application of the forfeiture rule is deemed to be without discretion, meaning that where death is the result of a crime, the rule is strictly applied.

Despite a number of circumstances favouring the exercise of some form of discretion, including that Neilsen had acted entirely in accordance with Ward’s wishes, the Court concluded that the law was clear – the application of the forfeiture rule must be applied.

Notwithstanding that Nielsen’s crime was motivated by an “honourable” purpose, and at the request of the deceased, the Court found that upon being convicted of causing Ward’s death, Nielsen forfeited any entitlement under the estate, and was no longer capable of acting as executor under the will.