Nicklinson posthumous right-to-die appeal
A widow has been granted leave to continue her late husband’s challenge to the existing law on murder and assisted suicide.
The Court of Appeal has made an order that Jane Nicklinson (pictured, left), as the administrator of her late husband Tony’s estate, may take forward his case that the current law was incompatible with his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Article 8 is a qualified right that protects the private life of individuals against arbitrary interference by public authorities and private organisations, such as the media. The concept of private life in UK law is based on the notion that the state should not intrude into the private sphere without strict justification.
Nicklinson, who had been left with ‘locked-in’ syndrome following a stroke, had argued in the High Court last June that in preventing him from taking his own life, the state was applying the current law disproportionately and was infringing his Article 8 rights.
Nicklinson also asked the court to rule that it was legal, on the grounds of necessity, for a doctor to help him end his life. The court was asked to rule on this before his death.
The High Court on 16 August 2012 dismissed both claims. Jane Nicklinson has now been granted leave to appeal the court’s judgment. She has also been granted a protective costs order so that if she loses she will not be liable for the costs of her opponents.
Following the High Court’s ruling, Nicklinson refused nutrition and medical treatment and died of pneumonia less than a week later on 22 August 2012.
Saimo Chahal of London civil liberties firm Bindmans is acting for Jane Nicklinson.
Comments
Assisted Dying
This is such an emotive issue that we cannot begin to understand how difficult this must be for the patient, their family, doctors or indeed the judiciary who have to decided this.
It is right this issues should be challenged to the highest level to provide some degree of certainty for the unfortunate few who find themselves in this position.
I was asked by Channel 5 news
I was asked by Channel 5 news to speak about this case in March last year despite having no direct links with it and then found to my astonishment that I will have met TN at a mutual friend's party many many years ago. This coincidence has heightened my interest in this important campaign and I wish Jane every success in achieving the outcome she is seeking which will hopefully encourage parliament at long last to address the wider issues.
ANOTHER FORTUNE FOR BINDMANS - IS IT GOING TO BE AT OUR EXPENSE?
I think that the case was an incredibly sad one, and I would want to be able to make the choice, rather than have a judge decide. But it is now academic in TNs case at least. It is obviously a huge emotional matter for his widow
At a time when we can't afford legal aid and we can't afford the enormous costs of running the courts, can we really afford as taxpayers to have this case run at our expense (at least in part because we pay the judges and the court running costs ) when there are many more day to day cases which could be heard/funded with the money?
The Court of Appeal has given permission to appeal. But surely the public have got to be considered too. We've had enough already of undeserving cases - not like this which I suggest is at least a deserving one. All the extradition cases, for example. All "matters of principle", all money making huge sums for Bindmans and similar firms and various barristers, all extremely expensive for the people who actually bear the cost - the ordinary working man.
I have to agree with
I have to agree with ejcooper. The country cannot afford to fund such cases now. It is a disproportionate use of public funds, which are needed for more important issues, such as helping those who have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned, to Appeal. There are many of those, they are just not in the public eye.
I don't agree. This is an
I don't agree.
This is an important point about the rights of the citizen-and is just the type of case which should be decided by a higher court, when it is quite obvious that Parliament is not going to consider the matter.
When will the country afford
When will the country afford such cases then? When you find you yourself unable to touch that keybord in front of for a reason connected to major trauma incurred without even your consent or awareness? I bet you will say then that, in a way, you have been "wrongly convicted" by life and "imprisoned" by it.
Lucky Tony that he has had such wonderful and supportive family but people like him still need reassurance that there is another way out, maybe something that they should discover about themselves that would keep them going.
Cos if you loose everything you know about yourself one day, like Tony, and can't physically do it anymore, you have to reinvent yourself or at least allow others to help you find it.
The core problem of the issue
The core problem of the issue of Nos and Yeses for assisted suicide is that it is ever an uncomfortable thought to know that you contribute to someone's death, whether you are the judge who decides in the matter, family member or a doctor.
Meanwhile, many physically disabled individuals believe that their lives have already ended.
Where are though, at this point, all these professionally qualified specialists who can spring a breeze of support to brace the new reality and show prospects of opportunities ahead of?
When pain (physical or emotional) becomes regular and unbearable, we shouldn't be surprised that someone may wish to end their life to escape it.
I think assisted suicide should be allowed but only following a long (lasting at least 12 months), immaculately structured and working (!) programme of therapeutic support.
So far it works only on individual, voluntary basis that people seek (or not) professional support following major trauma.
BINDMANS BARRISTERS & EXPERTS -THE COSTS OF THIS CASE
So where is the huge amount of funding coming from which is needed to fund this case?
Is it all coming from the ordinary taxpayer? How much will it be?
Or are Bindmans the Barristers and Experts doing it all on a pro bono basis? If they are, then they deserve congratulations.
Come on, Jonathan Rayner. Please ask them all, and let us know the answer. We would all be encouraged to find that we ordinary taxpayers aren't going to pick up the tab, and they are indeed being altruistic.
costs of case
I am not a litigator but would have presumed that the applicant bears his/her own costs pending the outcome of the case at which point the judge will decide who pays.
Therefore, unless the solicitors are acting pro bono the I would have expected the family to be paying the costs of these proceedings.
The judge at the high court said the matter was for parliament to decide so let parliament make the time to consider this matter properly and legislate.
Nikki Spencer - costs of the case
You may be right - the family may be paying. And, as you say, the risk is on the person incurring the cost until the the hearing. But don't we have the right to know the facts, unless the family are paying (I doubt they would put at risk the hundreds of thousands of pounds this will cost, but I may be incorrect).
Nikki - you write "I would have expected the damily to be paying". Just about the first advice I received as a newly qualified solicitor was: "Never assume anything." It proved to be a vital principle
Nicklinson posthumous right-to-die appeal
I think it is enormously admirable for Mr Nicklinson's family to continue his fight and lodge this appeal. You are an extremely courageous family and I applaud you. I wish you the greatest of success. I was very moved when I saw the family on the news. They really are an inspriration. Good luck.
Leading the way.
It seems to me that Nikki Spencer's take on the funding position is likely to be correct. A protective award relates to liability for an opponent's costs if unsuccessful and seems to me to be entirely appropriate in this case.
That said, if that is wrong and the public purse is to take any kind of 'hit' in connection with this matter, then I take ejcowper's point in so far as it relates to other cases which could be heard instead, as TN's case is effectively academic. However, the fact is that a decision in this case could affect all of those other people who are experiencing (or will experience) a similar fate. TN's case is so far through the legal system now it would be a travesty if the matter were not resolved at the highest possible level. Consideration of any other case would of course have to start from scratch, potentially leading to unnecessary delay and suffering for the individual(s) concerned.
I salute TN's family for continuing his fight. To say that his cause, and theirs, is admirable is a massive understatement.
I mean a protective costs
I mean a protective costs order of course.
Public funds
Surely a time comes to say enough is enough. How much should the taxpayer pay to fund this matter of principle. The guy sadly died (although that was what he wanted) how can he have any locus now? This appeal is a waste of time and money.
Why does the death make the
Why does the death make the principle irrelevant?
I was totally on the side of
I was totally on the side of TN on this one and feel very strongly that the law needs to be changed to allow people in TN's position to have their lives ended with dignity.
However, on the issue of appeals and the whether its worthwhile and fair to allow a publically funded case like this continue... I don't think it is. And that is purely because there's nothing the courts can do to give TN's family want they want. Parliament have already made it clear that they will not pass legislation on assisted suicide. The courts have no remit to change the law in such a controversial area. The very sympathetically written judgement in the High Court said as much This is an issue that only Parliament can solve.
I don't blame the family in the slightest though.
Protective costs orders -
Protective costs orders - like the protection given to the LSC and the EHRC when they fund litigation - are profoundly wrong and unfair. I make no bones about my view that costs should always follow the event - and that applies to the ET too - and that all claimants above the small claims/consumer level should be required if the Defendant so chooses to secure insurance to provide security for the Defendant for any order for costs made against the Claimant.
Except of course where one of the Commissions is funding the claim and then the Commission should be required to pay if the claim fails. Litigation should not be a one-way bet.
Rant over.
Lord Justice Touslon said:
Lord Justice Touslon said:
“I conclude that it would be wrong for this court to hold that article 8 requires voluntary euthanasia to afford a possible defence to murder. To do so would be to go far beyond anything which the Strasbourg court has said, would be inconsistent with the judgments of the House of Lords and the Strasbourg court in Pretty, and would be to usurp the proper role of Parliament.” (para 122)
It light of Lord Justice Touslon’s judgment would it not be better at this time of economic austerity to focus resources on a Private Members Bill and pursue the issue in Parliament.
I am in agreement with ‘trulysaddened’ that this is a very important and sensitive area that needs clarification, but if the Courts have made it clear that they are not in a position to deal with the matter further, surely it would be prudent to redirect energies towards a body that are in a position to address the issue.
We should respect the separation of powers between the Parliament and the Judiciary as it is a fundamental safeguard of our Legal System.
Just heard about CAB cuts
CABs struggling with budget cuts. Government says legal aid has to be reduced. How can they justify this appeal? World has gone mad!