R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38 [2014] 3...

Facts

• Tony Nicklinson, who was paralyzed following a stroke, sought a court declaration that a doctor could lawfully assist him in dying.
• Martin (‘M’), suffering from locked-in syndrome, requested legal assurance that his spouse could help him travel abroad for assisted dying without prosecution.
• The High Court rejected both Nicklinson’s and Martin’s claims.
• After Nicklinson’s death, the Supreme Court reviewed his case and Martin’s related legal questions.
• The proceedings centered on whether the UK’s ban on assisted suicide conflicted with Articles 8 (right to private and family life) and 14 (non-discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and considered Parliament’s role in such matters.

Issues

1. Whether the UK’s ban on assisted suicide violated the applicants’ rights under Article 8 ECHR regarding private and family life.
2. Whether the ban was unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR by treating those unable to end their own lives differently from those who could.
3. The extent to which courts versus Parliament should determine the legality and regulation of assisted dying.

Decision

• The Supreme Court held that Article 8 ECHR could cover end-of-life decisions but did not confer a right to assisted suicide.
• The ban on assisted suicide was found not to be unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14, as the distinction served legitimate aims, including protecting vulnerable persons and upholding the sanctity of life.
• The Court emphasized Parliament’s primary responsibility in law-making on assisted dying, highlighting ongoing public and legislative debate.
• A majority upheld the existing law; however, dissenting judges argued for a declaration of incompatibility with human rights, focusing on individual suffering and autonomy.

Legal Principles

• Article 8 ECHR can relate to personal and end-of-life choices but does not establish a right to assisted suicide.
• A state’s interest in protecting vulnerable individuals and preserving life justifies restrictions on assisted dying.
• Distinctions in the law may reflect legitimate aims and are not necessarily discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR.
• The judiciary recognizes Parliament’s institutional competence and authority to legislate on contentious moral and social issues.
• Dissenting opinions highlighted the need to balance individual autonomy and severe suffering against state interests.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice confirmed that the ban on assisted suicide is compatible with Articles 8 and 14 ECHR and reaffirmed Parliament’s primary role in law-making on assisted dying, while robust judicial dissents underscored the legal and ethical complexity of the issue.