Two assisted suicide campaigners have lost their appeal at the Supreme Court.
The Justices held by a 7-2 majority that the prohibition on assisted suicide in s 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 is lawful (Lady Hale and Lord Kerr dissenting), and compatible with the appellants’ Art 8 right to respect for private and family life. They unanimously held that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) 2010 code on prosecutions of those alleged to have assisted suicide is lawful, in R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38.
Tony Nicklinson, left paralysed by a stroke and able to communicate only through blinking, died in 2012. His appeal was brought by his wife, Jane. Paul Lamb is unable to move any part of his body except his left hand, following a car crash, and wished to end his life. The third respondent, someone known for the purpose of the proceedings as Martin, who is almost unable to move following a brainstem stroke, sought an order for the DPP to clarify its 2010 Code.
Yogi Amin, partner at Irwin Mitchell, which acted for the British Humanist Association, intervening, in the case, says: “The majority of judges rejected the appeal from the families but gave a strong signal to Parliament to review and potentially bring new legislation forward.
“The judges are split in their belief as to whether matters should be referred to Parliament for the laws on assisted suicide to be re-examined at this present moment in time. Lady Hale and Lord Kerr have clearly expressed support for this, whereas the majority of the other Justices have only gone as far as expressing their concerns about the present state of affairs but have not called into question their lawfulness.
“There is a need to reflect modern society which has changed massively over the past few decades after medicine has enabled doctors to prolong the life of some patients considerably.”
Saimo Chahal, partner at Bindmans, who acted for Nicklinson and Lamb, says: “Whilst this is not exactly the result we were hoping for, and it does not provide an immediate remedy, it is nonetheless very welcome as we have succeeded in showing that the issue, despite the controversy surrounding it, is one that the courts can adjudicate on and indeed must, if Parliament does not take action soon to consider the plight of people like Paul.”
