Assisted Dying: the Current Cases

Since the landmark case of Pretty v United Kingdom, assisted dying has remained one of the most contested areas of human rights law in the UK.

Several challenges have reached the courts, each highlighting the tension between the Suicide Act 1961 and the rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court of Appeal most recently considered the issue in R (Conway) v Secretary of State for Justice, where it again declined to amend the law and emphasised that any reform must come from Parliament.

Two new cases will soon return the debate to the courts.

Both raise fresh legal questions and arrive at a moment when the social and professional landscape around assisted dying is shifting. Medical organisations such as the Royal College of Physicians, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners have opened consultations among their members.

Politicians including Sir Vince Cable, Rob Marris and Lord Falconer have proposed legislation. Other jurisdictions, including Canada and several US states, have legalised assisted dying.

Charities such as My Death, My Decision, the Assisted Dying Coalition and Dignity in Dying continue to campaign for reform, while groups including Disability UK, Scope, Right to Life and Care Not Killing oppose changes. This evolving context may influence the evidence presented in the upcoming cases.

Paul Lamb

Paul Lamb is a long‑standing campaigner for assisted dying.

He was paralysed in a car accident in 1990 and previously brought a challenge alongside Tony and Jane Nicklinson in 2014. The Supreme Court dismissed that appeal by a seven-to-two majority, describing the issue as a moral question rather than a legal one.

The Justices acknowledged a conflict between the Suicide Act, which criminalises assistance in suicide, and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects private and family life. However, they concluded that Parliament, not the courts, must resolve the matter. Both Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale criticised the existing law and warned Parliament to act swiftly.

Five years later, Parliament has not reached a clear position.

Lamb has therefore returned to the courts, stating that he fears anyone who compassionately assists him would risk fourteen years’ imprisonment. Supported by Humanists UK and represented by Leigh Day, he launched a judicial review in July 2019.

He argues that Article 8, read alongside Article 14, is incompatible with sections 2(1), 2A(1) and 2B of the Suicide Act. Article 14 prohibits discrimination, including on the grounds of disability, and Lamb argues that the current law discriminates against him by preventing him from choosing to end his life on his own terms.

His case raises several questions for the courts.

Politics or law

Ethical and moral issues have traditionally been left to Parliament.

The courts have been reluctant to intervene even when Convention rights are engaged, as seen in Bellinger v Bellinger. However, the judiciary has intervened in certain cases where public opinion strongly favoured change, such as Ghaidan v Godin‑Mendoza.

Recent polls from assisted dying charities suggest increasing public support, although independent surveys are limited.

Parliamentary reluctance

Three bills have been introduced since 2014, and all have been defeated. Each focused on individuals with a terminal diagnosis and less than six months to live.

Coverage of the law

Lamb’s situation differs from previous cases. His condition is incurable but not terminal, meaning he could live for many years. He seeks the right to end his life at an unspecified future point. He argues that denying him this choice amounts to discrimination.

Who makes the law

The Supreme Court could reinterpret the Suicide Act using s. 3 of the Human Rights Act, which requires legislation to be read compatibly with Convention rights where possible. However, this risks encroaching on parliamentary supremacy and could be overturned by future legislation.

Alternatively, the court could again defer to Parliament, but political instability may delay any response.

Lamb’s case will be heard by the High Court in the coming months. He is joined by a second claimant approaching the issue from a different angle.

Phil Newby

Phil Newby, who has Motor Neurone Disease, has launched a challenge following the unsuccessful case of Noel Conway.

Newby’s condition is progressive and degenerative. He seeks legal provisions for when he can no longer live comfortably and argues that the law should change for anyone with a life‑shortening condition that will ultimately lead to death after years of suffering.

Newby also relies on Article 8 but aims to test the evidence more comprehensively. His representatives, including Adam Wagner of Doughty Street Chambers, propose a detailed examination of the risks and benefits of legalising assisted dying. They intend to present evidence like in Carter v Canada, the case that successfully ended Canada’s ban.

His case raises further questions.

Appeals and evidence

The courts have been unwilling to hear appeals without a significantly different proposition. Conway was refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in 2018, and Omid T was refused permission to cross‑examine evidence.

Judges have stated that factual evidence alone cannot resolve the ethical questions involved and that Parliament is better placed to address them.

Comparisons with Canada

The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected analogies with Carter v Canada. Newby’s team must persuade the courts to depart from previous judgments.

One distinction is that Newby is not reliant on non‑invasive ventilation, meaning he cannot choose to end his life by withdrawing it, a factor that influenced Conway’s case.

Lady Hale’s dissent

Newby seeks to rely on Lady Hale’s dissenting judgment in Nicklinson, which outlined circumstances under which assisted dying could become lawful. His judicial review argues that he meets those criteria.

Newby’s representatives have requested a declaration of incompatibility under s.4 of the Human Rights Act. If granted, Parliament would be required to consider amending the law, although it is unclear how quickly it could respond.

Conclusion

Both cases will soon begin their progress through the courts.

They arrive at a moment when public debate, medical opinion and international developments are shifting. The courts must decide whether to intervene or once again defer to Parliament.

The outcome will shape the future of assisted dying in the UK and determine whether the law can evolve to address the complex ethical, legal and human rights questions at its core.