Paul Bowen KC recalls the ground-breaking legal battle — and condemns the "invidious" impact of the current law.
-
On Tony Nicklinson’s tragic resolve: "He had always made it very clear that if he was unsuccessful, then he would take his own life in the only way that he could, which was to starve himself to death."
-
On the psychological toll of the case: "...this was perhaps the only thing that was keeping him going at that stage was the prospect of being able to successfully establish that the law was wrong."
-
On the future of assisted dying laws: "I don't see the law changing through litigation any time soon."
-
On the reality of the current legal landscape: "The current law does leave people like Tony in an invidious, awful position..."
NEW PODCAST SERIES: Inside the Case
Third episode: "A right to die?"
The assisted dying laws leave people like Tony Nicklinson in an ‘invidious’ position more than a decade after he starved himself to death, a leading KC says.
Paul Bowen KC - who acted for Nicklinson in his landmark legal battle - says a change in the law is not likely now through litigation and will have to be made through Parliament.
But his comments, in a new episode of The University of Law’s podcast series, Inside the Case, come as controversial legislation before Parliament looks set to fail through lack of time.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has passed through the Commons but faces more than 1200 amendments in the Lords.
The Government has said it will not give the bill more time before the May deadline, when all legislation must have passed or automatically falls. There are just six sitting days left before May.
Paul Bowen, a leading human rights and public law KC, acted for Tony Nicklinson and after his death, for his widow Jane, in one of the most important right-to-die cases in recent legal history.
Tony Nicklinson was a British civil engineer who suffered a catastrophic stroke in 2005, leaving him completely paralysed with locked-in syndrome, unable to speak, and entirely dependent on others.
He communicated only by blinking and described his life as a "living nightmare."
In 2012, Nicklinson launched a High Court challenge seeking legal immunity for a doctor who would assist him to die.
Mr. Bowen recalls recognising the enormity of the case, describing it as a "full frontal assault on both the law of murder and on the law of assisted suicide."
When the High Court dismissed the case, ruling that only Parliament could change the law, Nicklinson refused food, fluids, and medical treatment. He developed pneumonia and died just six days after the ruling.
After his death, his widow, Jane, carried the case forward to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court sat with an unprecedented panel of nine justices to hear the complex constitutional arguments.
The legal team narrowly won the right for domestic courts to rule on human rights incompatibility but the Supreme Court ultimately decided 7-2 against making the declaration, effectively passing the responsibility to Parliament.
In the podcast, Bowen reflects on the strategic challenges of the litigation, notably the damaging split among campaigners.
Groups like Dignity in Dying pushed for a narrower law limited to those with six months or fewer to live, which would not have helped individuals like Nicklinson. Bowen argues this lack of unanimity undermined the push for legal change.
With recent shifts in both domestic and European courts towards a more conservative stance, Bowen does not foresee the courts stepping in to change the law.
But he remains hopeful that Parliament will eventually act and concludes: "It was an honour to run those cases, an absolute honour to work with those amazing people. But I don't think I'll run that case again."