“Locked-in syndrome” patient wins right to take his case to the High Court
A man with “locked-in syndrome” has won the right to have his assisted suicide case heard by the High Court.
Tony Nicklinson, 58, was left paralysed by a stroke in 2005 and now communicates by blinking. He is unable to carry out his own suicide and is seeking a court declaration that a doctor who ended his life would have a defence of “necessity” to any murder charge.
In his statement to the proceedings, Nicklinson asserted: “What I object to is having my right to choose taken away from me after I had been saved.
“It seems to me that, if my right to choose life or death at the time of initial crisis is reasonably taken away, it is only fair to have the right to choose back when one gets over the initial crisis and has time to reflect.”
He seeks a declaration that the current law of assisted suicide is incompatible with his right to respect for private life under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in so far as it criminalises assisted suicide.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) argues that the law is settled and clear, that any change is a matter for Parliament and not the civil courts, and that the doctrine of necessity can only provide a defence if the defendant is faced with a choice between two deaths.
This week, however, Mr Justice Charles decided the case should proceed to a full trial with medical evidence, in Nicklinson v MoJ [2012] EWHC 304 (QB).
Charles J said he had been persuaded by the claimant’s arguments that there were examples of the courts “introducing legal criteria and safeguards into the common law in respect of issues that do or can be said to trigger the constitutional approach”, and that “whilst in general it may be preferable for issues of broad social and moral policy to be determined by Parliament, the fact that they are hotly contested can be a factor in favour of the court intervening, particularly if, as here, the suggested solution involves the participation of the courts on a case-by-case basis.”
Nicklinson’s solicitor, Saimo Chahal, partner at Bindmans, says: “It would be completely wrong if the arguments on Tony’s behalf could not be fully argued on the grounds that we should wait for Parliament to change the law.
“The court has a live case before it and is fully able to examine the details in depth and to reach a decision having heard all of the facts, evidence and legal arguments.”
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
