- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Nicklinson & Anor R (on the application of)
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion concerns joined appeals brought by several individuals (hereafter “the Appellants”) who suffer profound physical incapacity and wish to end their lives with assistance. They challenged section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, which criminalises encouraging or assisting suicide. After defeats in the High Court and Court of Appeal, they appealed to the Supreme Court. A separate appeal was brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) against an order requiring revision of her 2010 prosecution policy; one Appellant cross-appealed, seeking still clearer guidance.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the blanket prohibition in section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 is a disproportionate interference with the right to respect for private life under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- Whether, and in what circumstances, domestic courts may declare primary legislation incompatible with Convention rights when the Strasbourg Court affords states a margin of appreciation.
- Whether the DPP’s published “Policy for Prosecutors in respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide” is sufficiently clear to satisfy the legality requirement of article 8 (2).
- Whether the appellate court should order the DPP to modify that policy so that medical and other professional carers can foresee when prosecution is unlikely.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- Section 2(1) imposes an unjustifiable “blanket ban” that fails the proportionality test under article 8; a narrow, judge-sanctioned exception could protect vulnerable persons while respecting individual autonomy.
- The 2010 DPP Policy leaves professional carers uncertain and thus chills lawful compassionate assistance, breaching the “in accordance with law” requirement.
Respondents’ / DPP’s Arguments
- Protecting life and the vulnerable are pressing social aims; Parliament chose a universal prohibition and recently reaffirmed it in 2009, so courts should defer.
- The margin of appreciation acknowledged by Strasbourg leaves the constitutional choice to Parliament; judicial re-drawing of section 2 would usurp that role.
- The 2010 Policy already lists relevant factors; requiring finer detail would force the DPP to create de-facto exemptions, contrary to the separation of powers.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Pretty v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1 | Article 8 engages end-of-life choices; blanket bans may fall within state margin of appreciation. | Used to show Strasbourg had not condemned the UK prohibition but left assessment to domestic authorities. |
| R (Pretty) v DPP [2002] 1 AC 800 | Earlier domestic refusal to disapply s 2(1); relevance of prosecutorial discretion. | Court reconsidered its scope post-Human Rights Act but did not overrule. |
| R (Purdy) v DPP [2010] 1 AC 345 | DPP must publish offence-specific policy to meet article 8 legality. | Formed basis of discussion whether 2010 Policy now suffices. |
| Haas v Switzerland (2011) 53 EHRR 33 | Right to decide means and timing of death lies within article 8. | Cited to confirm article 8 is engaged. |
| Re B (Consent to Treatment) [2002] 1 FLR 1090 | Capacitous adults may refuse life-sustaining treatment. | Invoked to illustrate existing judicial oversight of life-ending decisions. |
| Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789 | Distinction between acts and omissions in ending life; court’s role in withdrawal of treatment. | Referenced when considering potential judicial procedures for assisted dying. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court delivered multiple judgments. A majority accepted that article 8 is engaged but differed on remedy:
- All Justices agreed courts possess jurisdiction to declare incompatibility even where Strasbourg affords a margin of appreciation.
- A majority (Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr) held it was in principle open to declare section 2 incompatible, yet only Lady Hale and Lord Kerr would do so immediately; others preferred to allow Parliament first to consider tailored exceptions.
- Lords Sumption, Clarke, Reed and Hughes considered the blanket ban proportionate; protecting vulnerable persons justified universal criminalisation, and any relaxation demanded legislative—not judicial—design.
- On the DPP policy, the Court agreed it cannot lawfully create advance exemptions; clarity is desirable but the 2010 Policy is not unlawful. However, given apparent ambiguities (particularly for professional carers), the DPP should review wording though no mandatory order was made.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeals against section 2(1) were DISMISSED; the DPP’s appeal succeeded, so no court-ordered revision of the 2010 Policy was made; the cross-appeal seeking clearer non-prosecution guidance was dismissed.
Implications: The current absolute offence of assisting suicide remains unchanged. The Court signals that a focused, judge-supervised exception might be Convention-compliant, inviting Parliamentary scrutiny; should legislation remain static, future applicants may renew incompatibility claims. Prosecutors retain discretion guided by the 2010 Policy, which the DPP is expected voluntarily to clarify, especially regarding healthcare professionals.
Alert