Assisted dying campaigner refused permission for Supreme Court appeal

A sufferer from motor neurone disease who wants to be able to choose the time of his own death with the help of a medical professional, has been refused permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court in his application to challenge the statutory ban on assisting suicide in England & Wales.

Noel Conway had sought a declaration that the ban in s 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 was incompatible with his rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for private life). The Divisional Court refused his application.

At present Mr Conway requires non-invasive ventilation (NIV) around 23 hours a day to assist hos breathing. When it is predicted he swill have less than six months to live, he would like a medical professional to be able to prescribe him medication that he could take to end his life at a time of his choosing. Such assistance would carry a sentence of up to 14 years under the 1961 Act.

In its note giving its decision, the panel of Justices (Lady Hale, Lord Reed and Lord Kerr) explained that Mr Conway could bring about his death in another way, by refusing consent to the continuation of his NIV, and once he became dependent on continuous NIV, death would probably follow within a few minutes, and on his own specialist's evidence medication could be given so that this took place without his distress. However Mr Conway does not accept that this would be a dignified death, and does not know how he would feel. "In his view, which is shared by many, it is his life and he should have the right to choose to end it in the way which he considers most consistent with his human dignity."

The panel said it was not in doubt that the issue raised arguable points of law. However the European Court of Human Rights had held, in Nicklinson v United Kingdom (2015), that whether an interference with article 8 rights such as the 1961 Act was justified was for each member state to decide: there was no European consensus on the matter.

Its note concluded: "Under the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements, only Parliament could change this law. But the Supreme Court could, if it thought right, make a declaration that the law was incompatible with the Convention rights, leaving it to Parliament to decide what, if anything, to do about it. The questions for the court would therefore be twofold: (1) Is the hard and fast rule banning all assistance to commit suicide a justified interference with the Convention rights of those who wish for such assistance? (2) If it is not, should this court make a declaration to that effect? In particular, is it appropriate to make such a declaration in this case? These are questions upon which the considered opinions of conscientious judges may legitimately differ. Indeed, they differ amongst the members of this panel.

"Ultimately, the question for the panel is whether the prospects of Mr Conway’s succeeding in his claim before this court are sufficient to justify our giving him permission to pursue it, with all that that would entail for him, for his family, for those on all sides of this multi-faceted debate, for the general public and for this court. Not without some reluctance, it has been concluded that in this case those prospects are not sufficient to justify giving permission to appeal."

Click here to view the court's statement.