Sometimes, tragic stories from the past remind us of the dangers we still face today—especially when it comes to how vulnerable people get treated by the justice system and medical laws.
The recent release of Peter Sullivan, once known as the ‘Beast of Birkenhead,’ after nearly four decades in prison, is one such story.
It echoes painfully familiar mistakes from the past and raises serious questions about current debates over assisted dying laws in the UK.
The Peter Sullivan Case: A Grim Reminder
Peter Sullivan was locked up for 38 years after being convicted of a horrific murder in 1986.
The victim was Diane Sindall, a barmaid who suffered a brutal sexual attack.
But new DNA evidence, uncovered after decades, finally proved Sullivan wasn’t the killer.
Back then, Sullivan was viewed as a bit of a simpleton—people called him the “village idiot” because of his learning disabilities.
He had a history of petty theft and was spotted near the crime scene carrying a crowbar.
Police interrogated him without a lawyer present, and Sullivan ended up confessing, then withdrawing that confession, then confessing again—all while crying out for his mother. His vulnerability was clear.
The Stefan Kiszko Tragedy: A Story of Injustice
Reading about Sullivan’s ordeal brought to mind Stefan Kiszko, a man convicted of a similarly infamous murder in 1975.
Kiszko, who had the mental age of a child and serious physical conditions, was accused of killing 11-year-old Lesley Molseed in Rochdale.
Despite medical evidence proving he couldn’t have been the father of the semen found on the victim, he confessed after days of police pressure—again without legal support—and asked for his mother repeatedly.
Kiszko spent 16 years behind bars before DNA cleared him, but the damage was done: tormented by fellow prisoners, broken by the system, and tragically dead by 41.
Had the death penalty still been in effect, he almost certainly would have been executed.
Revisiting Capital Punishment and Assisted Dying
Thankfully, the death penalty was abolished in the UK in 1965, sparing people like Kiszko and potentially Sullivan from execution.
But now, Parliament is considering a new law that would allow assisted dying, using lethal drugs much like some US states do.
The bill, pushed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater and supported by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, is moving through the Commons.
Yet, the process so far has been chaotic, with dozens of proposed amendments ignored and only a handful debated.
Concerns Over the Bill’s Impact on Vulnerable People
One key concern came from Conservative MP Damian Hinds, who tried to add a safeguard to protect people with learning disabilities from doctors suggesting assisted dying unless they bring it up themselves.
This is crucial because the bill allows doctors to suggest it first, which could be extremely dangerous for vulnerable patients, especially those who might be depressed after receiving a fatal diagnosis.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has publicly opposed the bill, fearing it could unintentionally encourage suicidal thoughts.
The Personal Stakes: Families and Loved Ones Left Out
Leadbeater’s bill also allows these discussions to happen without family involvement, which is deeply unsettling for many.
Dominic Lawson, the author reflecting on these cases, has a daughter with Down’s syndrome and finds the idea terrifying.
People with learning disabilities often want to please others and can be highly suggestible, making the risk of coercion or misunderstanding very real.
It’s a painful irony that, while we promote the rights of the vulnerable, the law could put them at risk of being pressured into choosing death.
Voices from the Disability Community Speak Out
Back in 2011, adults with cerebral palsy spoke out against assisted dying legislation, fearing it would put vulnerable people in harm’s way.
One man who once supported legalizing assisted suicide changed his mind after realizing the risks.
These voices remind us that pain and suffering do not justify rushing into laws that could endanger those who are already at risk of abuse or neglect.
Lessons From History: The Danger of False Confessions
Neither Peter Sullivan nor Stefan Kiszko’s cases were about medical decisions but police coercion. Still, their experiences highlight how vulnerable individuals can be pressured into choices or confessions they don’t fully understand.
The comparison to assisted dying laws is sobering: can we trust that vulnerable people will not be subtly coerced or influenced in a medical context when even legal safeguards often fail?
Experts Warn of Serious Flaws in the Proposed Law
Experts like Dr. Matthew Doré from the Association for Palliative Medicine warn that, despite all safeguards, mistakes happen—even in the justice system, which has many layers of review.
With assisted dying, the decision might rest with just two doctors.
Former Supreme Court Justice Jonathan Sumption, who once supported changing the law, now warns the bill is “seriously defective” and reads “like a protocol for an execution,” especially putting vulnerable people at risk.
Why This Matters Now More Than Ever
As this controversial bill moves forward, it’s vital to remember the human cost behind it—the innocent lives ruined by miscarriages of justice and the vulnerable people who might be pressured into decisions they don’t fully grasp.
History, with the cases of Sullivan and Kiszko, is a powerful cautionary tale.
As a society, we owe it to those at risk to ensure that laws meant to protect dignity do not instead become tools for harm.