The Private Members’ Bill which proposes that assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill be made legal has recommenced its passage through Parliament, having been stymied at the first attempt by the last General Election.

The Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill was introduced in 2005 by Lord Joffe and is now being considered by a select committee of the House of Lords. The committee believes it is necessary to distinguish between assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia so that the proposed legalisation of each can be considered separately.

A man who warned drivers that they were approaching a police speed trap was acquitted recently when the court ruled that for it to be proved that an offence had been committed, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the drivers who were warned were either exceeding the speed limit or were likely to be exceeding the speed limit at the location of the speed trap.

Milk tanker driver Charles Glendinning had waved his arms at approaching motorists to warn them to slow down as they approached a speed trap on the A303. He was charged with obstructing the police, but in the court’s view the absence of evidence that other drivers were influenced by his signal and slowed down as a result meant that he could not be said to have been obstructing the police in the performance of their duty.

That is not the end of the story, however. Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has announced that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is seeking the right to appeal to the House of Lords, claiming that it should not be necessary to prove that drivers would have exceeded the speed limit unless warned in order to gain a conviction in such circumstances. Should the CPS succeed, such a ruling will make it much easier for the police to act against motorists who flash their headlights or take action of any kind to try to warn other drivers of approaching speed traps.

The Government is considering extending the time limits during which people can bring legal actions. The re-think follows the recent case in which a woman’s attempt to claim damages from the man who attempted to rape her was rejected by the High Court as being ‘out of time’.

Mrs A was attacked in Leeds in 1988 by Iowarth Hoare, who had committed several sex offences in the 1970s and 1980s. He was jailed for life in 1989. Mrs A did not pursue a claim for damages against him at the time because he had no assets. In 2004, whilst on day release from prison, Mr Hoare bought a ticket for the national lottery which won him over £4 million. On hearing of his new wealth, Mrs A attempted to bring a claim against him.

In the view of the court, she could not take action against Mr Hoare, who has now been released from prison, because the time between her injuries and the commencement of proceedings exceeded the limitation period after which a claim cannot be brought. She is said to be likely to appeal against the decision.

The Home Office is considering lengthening the period during which an action can be brought in criminal cases where the criminal subsequently acquires substantial assets. At present, the limitation period for most types of action is six years from the date when the damage is done.

If you suffer injury or loss, it is important to take advice promptly, not just from the point of view of the operation of limitation periods, but also because the necessary evidence is often more difficult to acquire if too much time passes and medical evidence based on specialist reports can often take a considerable time to obtain.