The High Court in its ruling yesterday dismissing an appeal against Ireland’s ban on assisted suicide held out the possibility that those helping terminally ill people to commit suicide might not be prosecuted, according to reports.

Ms Marie Fleming, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, lost her challenge against Ireland’s legal ban on assisted suicide.

However comments made by Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, who issued the ruling, suggested that her partner, Tony Curran, might avoid prosecution if he partakes in her suicide, the Irish Independent reports.

Mr Curran, who dissuaded Ms Fleming (59) from ending her life at a Swiss voluntary euthanasia clinic five years ago, has previously vowed to risk a 14-year jail term to end the former lecturer’s suffering.

The judges, who described Ms Fleming’s circumstances as “unique and special”, said that Ireland’s Director of Public Prosecutions Claire Loftus was an “incidental beneficiary” of assisted-suicide guidelines issued three years ago in the UK.

The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines set out when third parties, including loved ones, would not face prosecution in relation to so-called ‘mercy killings’.

“The very fact that UK guidelines on assisted suicide now exist must surely inform any exercise of the Director (DPP) in this jurisdiction,” said the court, adding that the list of factors compiled in the UK “provides a measure of comfort”.

The court said it would be unconstitutional for the DPP to issue guidelines in advance on assisted suicide prosecutions.

But it said a different state of affairs would arise where reliable compliance with a list of factors was considered after the event.

“The court feels sure that the DPP in this, of all cases, would exercise her discretion in a humane and sensitive fashion while stressing that the Director must retain the full ambit of her discretion as whether to prosecute or not,” said Mr Justice Kearns.

He continued: “This approach leaves the legislative ban intact while ensuring that the Director is afforded the fullest opportunity to consider what she may think and the special and extenuating factors arising from the harrowing experiences being endured by the plaintiff.”

In a 121-page ruling that is expected to be appealed by Ms Fleming to the Supreme Court, the judges said that the risks involved in any relaxation of the ban were too great to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

“It would be impossible to ensure that the aged, the disabled, the poor, the unwanted, the rejected, the lonely, the impulsive, the financially compromised and emotionally vulnerable would not avail of this option in order to avoid a sense of being a burden on their family and society,” said the court.

The three-judge court, comprised of the Mr Justice Kearns, Mr Justice Paul Carney and Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, unanimously rejected Ms Fleming’s constitutional challenge.

The court said that while Ms Fleming was in many ways “the most remarkable witness any of the judges had ever been privileged to encounter,” in the interests of protecting the vulnerable in society the ban was justified and did not amount to an interference with her rights.

After the ruling, in a statement read by her solicitor, Ms Fleming said she was “very disappointed and saddened” by the outcome.