TonyNicklinsonvMinistryofJustice AMvDirectorofPublicProsecutionsandothers HighCourt(AdministrativeCourt) 16August2012 SUMMARYTOASSISTTHEMEDIA TheHighCourt(LordJusticeToulson,MrJusticeRoyceandMrsJusticeMacur)hastodayrejected challengestothelegalbanonvoluntaryeuthanasia,andtothepolicyoftheDirectorofPublic Prosecutionsincasesofassisteddying,broughtbytwomensufferingfromlockedinsyndrome. TheCourtrecognisedthatthecasesraiseprofoundlydifficultethical,socialandlegalissues,butit judgedthatanychangetothelawmustbeamatterforParliamenttodecide. Introduction LordJusticeToulsonintroducesthetwocases(paragraphs14): Thesearetragiccases.Theypresentsocietywithlegalandethicalquestionsofthemostdifficult kind.Theyalsoinvolveconstitutionalquestions.AttheinvitationofthecourttheAttorneyGeneral hasintervened.

vened.(para1) Putsimply,theclaimantssufferfromcatastrophicphysicaldisabilitiesbuttheirmentalprocesses areunimpairedinthesensethattheyarefullyconsciousoftheirpredicament.Theysufferfrom lockedinsyndrome.Bothhavedeterminedthattheywishtodiewithdignityandwithoutfurther sufferingbuttheirconditionmakesthemincapableofendingtheirownlives.Neitheristerminallyill andtheyfacetheprospectoflivingformanyyears.(para2) Barringunforeseenmedicaladvances,neitherMartinsnorTonysconditioniscapableofphysical improvement.Althoughtheyhavemanysimilarities,therearesomedifferencesintheircondition. Therearealsodifferencesintheorderswhichtheyseekandthewaysinwhichtheircaseshavebeen presented.(para4) Martin Martinsconditionandoutlineofhisapplicationtothecourtisdescribedinparagraphs510. TheprimaryreliefsoughtbyMartinisanorderthattheDPPshouldclarifyhispublishedpolicyso thatotherpeople,whomayoncompassionategroundsbewillingtoassistMartintocommitsuicide 1

throughtheuseofDignitas,wouldknow,onewayortheother,whethertheywouldbemorelikely thannottofaceprosecutioninEngland.(para9) IfhesucceedsinhisclaimagainsttheDPP,MartinalsoseeksdeclarationsinrelationtotheGMC andSRAinorderthatadoctororsolicitorwhoplayedapartinhelpingMartintocommitsuicidevia Dignitas,withoutfacingriskofprosecutionundertheDPPsclarifiedpolicy,shouldnotbeexposedto theriskofprofessionaldisciplinaryproceedings.Inthealternative(andMrHaversmadeitclearthat thiswasverymuchafallbackposition),ifMartinfailsinhisclaimagainsttheDPP,heseeksa declarationthatsection2oftheSuicideActisincompatiblewitharticle8oftheEuropean Convention.(para10) Tony Tonysconditionandoutlineofhisapplicationtothecourtisdescribedinparagraphs1125. Thereliefheseeksbywayofjudicialreviewis: Adeclarationthatitwouldnotbeunlawful,onthegroundsofnecessity,forMrNicklinsonsGP,or anotherdoctor,toterminateortoassisttheterminationofMrNicklinsonslife. Furtheroralternatively,adeclarationthatthecurrentlawofmurderand/orofassistedsuicideis incompatiblewithMrNicklinsonsrighttorespectforprivatelifeunderarticle8,contrarytos1and6 oftheHumanRightsAct1998,insofarasitcriminalisesvoluntaryactiveeuthanasiaand/orassisted suicide.(para18) Issuesinthecase Thecentralissuesarethese: 1.Isvoluntaryeuthanasiaapossibledefencetomurder? 2.IstheDPPunderalegaldutytoprovidefurtherclarificationofhispolicy? 3.Alternatively,issection2oftheSuicideActincompatiblewitharticle8inobstructing MartinorTonyfromexercisingarightintheircircumstancestoreceiveassistancetocommit suicide? 4.AretheGMCandtheSRAunderalegaldutytoclarifytheirpositions? 5.IsthemandatorylifesentenceformurderincompatiblewiththeConventioninacaseof genuinevoluntaryeuthanasia?(para26) Suicideandeuthanasiaatcommonlaw TheCourtconsidersthehistoricalpositionofsuicideandeuthanasiaatcommonlaw,theprovisions oftheSuicideAct,theDPPspolicystatement,theEuropeanConventionandParliamentaryproposals forchangingthelawinparagraphs2849. Issue1:Isvoluntaryeuthanasiaapossibledefencetomurder? Thisisdiscussedisdetailatparagraphs50122.

Page2of5

HavingconsideredthequestionwithoutreferencetoArticle8oftheEuropeanConvention (paragraphs5087),LordJusticeToulsonconcluded: Forallofthosereasonsitwouldbewrongforthecourttodepartfromthelongestablished positionthatvoluntaryeuthanasiaismurder,howeverunderstandablethemotivesmaybe,unless thecourtisrequiredtodosobyarticle8.(para87) HavingthenconsideredArticle8(paragraphs88122),LordJusticeTouslonsaid: Iconcludethatitwouldbewrongforthiscourttoholdthatarticle8requiresvoluntary euthanasiatoaffordapossibledefencetomurder.Todosowouldbetogofarbeyondanything whichtheStrasbourgcourthassaid,wouldbeinconsistentwiththejudgmentsoftheHouseof LordsandtheStrasbourgcourtinPretty,andwouldbetousurptheproperroleofParliament. (para122) Issue2:IstheDPPunderalegaldutytoprovidefurtherclarificationofhispolicy? Thisisdiscussedisdetailatparagraphs123144. [CounselforMartin]submittedthattheDPPspolicyprovidedthenecessarydegreeofclarityfor whathedescribedasclass1helpers,thatis,familymembersandfriendswhowerewillingto provideassistanceoutofcompassion.DebbiePurdyshusbandfellwithinthatclass,andsowould Martinswifeifshewerewillingtohelp.However,thepolicywasdefectiveinthatitfailedtogive adequateclarityastoanothergroup,whichhedescribedasclass2helpers,comprisingindividuals whowerewillingtoactselflessly,withcompassionandwithoutsuspectmotives,butwhohadno personalconnectionwiththeindividualwhowishedtoendhisorherlife.Class2helpersmightbe professionals,carersorothers.Itisatonceapparentthatclass2helpersarenotaubiquitousclass. (para127) LordJusticeToulsonconcluded: FromtheDPPspolicystatement,Ibelievethatitwouldbecleartoapersonwho,inthecourseof hisprofession,agreedtoprovideassistancetoanotherwiththeintentionofencouragingor assistingthatpersontocommitsuicide,thatsuchconductwouldcarrywithitarealriskof prosecution. Whethertheriskwouldamounttoaprobabilitywoulddependonallthecircumstances,butIdo notbelievethatitwouldberighttorequiretheDPPtoformulatehispolicyinsuchawayasto meettheforeseeabiltytestadvocatedby[Martinscounsel].(paras139140) LordJusticeToulsongoesontoexplainhisthreereasonsforthisdecisioninparagraphs141143. Issue4:AretheGMCandtheSRAunderalegaldutytoclarifytheirpositions? LordJusticeToulsonconcluded: SinceIhaverejectedtheclaimthattheDPPisobligedbylawtopublishfurtherclarificationofhis policyonassisteddying,itfollowsthatMartinsclaimsagainsttheGMCandtheSRAalsofail.Itis thereforeunnecessarytoconsidertheotherdefencesadvancedbythosedefendants.(para145)

Page3of5

Issue3:Issection2oftheSuicideActincompatiblewithArticle8? Thisisconsideredinparagraphs146148. LordJusticeToulsonconcluded: AsIseeit,theissueofthecompatibilityofsection2witharticle8hasbeendeterminedatthe highestlevel,subjecttotheargumentaboutfurtherclarification,whichIhaverejected.However, ifitwereopentothiscourttoconsiderthematterafresh,Iwouldrejecttheclaiminanyeventon thegroundthatthelawrelatingtoassistedsuicideisanareaoflawwherememberstateshavea widemarginofappreciation(Haas)andthatintheUKthisisamatterfordeterminationby Parliament,astheHouseofLordsrecognisedinPurdy.(para148) Issue5:Isthemandatorysentenceoflifeimprisonmentformurderincompatiblewiththe Conventionincasesofgenuinevoluntaryeuthanasia? TheCourtdeclinedtoruleonthisissueasLordJusticeToulsonsaid: Thereisstrongevidence(consideredbytheLawCommissioninitsreviewofthelawofmurder)that thepublicdoesnotregardthemandatorysentenceoflifeimprisonmentasappropriateincasesof genuinevoluntaryeuthanasia,andtherehavebeencallsforittobechanged,butwhetheritis incompatiblewiththeConventionisamatterwhichthecourtshoulddecideonlyinacaseinwhichit isnecessarytodoso.(para149) Conclusion LordJusticeToulsonconcluded: TonysandMartinscircumstancesaredeeplymoving.Theirdesiretohavecontrolovertheending oftheirlivesdemandsthemostcarefulandsympatheticconsideration,buttherearealsoother importantissuestoconsider.Adecisiontoallowtheirclaimswouldhaveconsequencesfarbeyond thepresentcases.TodoasTonywants,thecourtwouldbemakingamajorchangeinthelaw.Todo asMartinwants,thecourtwouldbecompellingtheDPPtogobeyondhisestablishedlegalrole. Thesearenotthingswhichthecourtshoulddo.Itisnotforthecourttodecidewhetherthelaw aboutassisteddyingshouldbechangedand,ifso,whatsafeguardsshouldbeputinplace.Under oursystemofgovernmentthesearemattersforParliamenttodecide,representingsocietyasa whole,afterParliamentaryscrutiny,andnotforthecourtonthefactsofanindividualcaseorcases. ForthosereasonsIwouldrefusetheseapplicationsforjudicialreview.(para150) MrJusticeRoyceadded: Iagreewiththeanalysis,reasoningandconclusionsofToulsonLJ.Iaddonlythis.Noonecouldfail tobedeeplymovedbytheterriblepredicamentfacedbythesemenstruckdownintheirprimeand facingafuturebereftofhope.Eachcasegivesrisetomostprofoundethical,moral,religiousand socialissues.SomewillsaytheJudgesmuststepintochangethelaw.Somemaybesorelytempted todoso.ButtheshortansweristhattodosoherewouldbetousurpthefunctionofParliamentin thisclassicallysensitivearea.Anychangewouldneedthemostcarefullystructuredsafeguards whichonlyParliamentcandeliver.(para151) MrsJusticeMacuradded:

Page4of5

IagreewiththejudgmentofToulsonLJandendorsethecommentsofRoyceJ.Superfluousasit maythereforeappearIneverthelessfeelcompelledtocommentthatthedirephysicalandemotional predicamentfacingTonyandMartinandtheirfamiliesmayintensifyanytribunalsuneaseidentified byLordMustillinBland(at887)inthedistinctiondrawnbetweenmercykillingandthewithdrawal oflifesustainingtreatmentornecessitiesoflife.JudgesoftheFamilyDivisionsittingintheCourtof Protectionadjudicateuponapplicationsfordeclarationsinrelationtothelatterandhavebecome wellaccustomedtothebalancesheetofbestinterestswhichinformsthedecisionoftheCourt. However,MrBowenQCdoesnotsucceedinpersuadingmethatthisprocessmayreassuresociety thatthedevelopmentofcommonlawforwhichhecontendsismeritedbyseparateconsiderationof individualcircumstancesbyindividualtribunalsofwhateverstatureandexperience.Theissues raisedbyTonyandMartinscaseareconspicuouslymatterswhichmustbeadjudicateduponby ParliamentandnotJudgesortheDPPasunelectedofficersofstate.(para152) ends ThissummaryisprovidedtoassistinunderstandingtheCourtsdecision.Itdoesnotformpartof thereasonsforthedecision.ThefulljudgmentoftheCourtistheonlyauthoritativedocument.

Page5of5