The Application of Nicklinson Versus Ministry of Justice - Report Example

Case Case Introduction In this case, R (on the application of Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice UKSC 38, the appellants are Nicklinson and the director of the public prosecutions while the respondents are the ministry of justice and AM. The legal issue of concern in this case is the application of law in the Section 2 (1) of the 1961 Suicide Act and its compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights Article 8. The case also questioned the legality of the 2010 policy on assisting suicide. The Supreme Court on the majority of basis of seven is to two dismissed the appeal that Mr. Lamb and Mr. Nicklinson brought before the court. The court unanimously grants room for the DPP appeal while on the other hand it dismisses cross appeal that Martin presents. As such, the court argued that Nicklinson case is a Parliament issue since it deals with social representation of the society. The court decision was correct legally, ultimate and sensible fairest to a large number, but on individual consideration it was sad. Key facts In Wales and England, suicide was considered a crime until 1961, as well as assisting or encouraging suicide. The Act of 1961 Suicide in section 1, suicide stopped being considered a crime. In contrast, the Act’s section 2 indicated that assisting or encouraging suicide amounts to a crime. Such a crime had a penal code of 14 years jail. However, the prosecutions could not take place without the DPP’s permission (Nurses, undertakers and duty to die 2013). In 2009, the Parliament amended Section 2 while its basic effects remain an altered. The House of Lords made a decision in 2009, which triggered the DPP to publish a policy for prosecutors involved in cases of assisting and encouraging suicide based on Section 2. The first appeal involves suffering of a catastrophic stroke of Mr. Nicklinson for nine years. He had made several attempts over the years to commit suicide, but such would not occur without assistance. However, he could engage in distressing and painful exercises or self-starvation. He needed assistance from someone to end his life through an injection with a lethal drug. Further, he focused on using the Dr Nitschke machine as a means to help in his death. Mr. Nicklinson made an application to the High Court. The claim was that it was lawful for a doctor to assist him to commit suicide or kill himself. If the court denied that, we would apply that the current state of the law lacks compatibility with the personal life rights as indicated in Convection article 8. Nevertheless, the High Court denied all the applications, which made Nicklinson refuse died and he later died of pneumonia in 2012. Jane, the wife of Nicklinson became a party of the proceedings while Mr. Lamb became the Court of Appeal claimant. After the 1991 car crash, Mr. Lamb lacks the ability of moving objects except through his right hand. As such, he wishes to commit suicide because such a condition is irreversible. Both appeals by Mr. Lamb and Mr. Nicklinson were dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Another appeal was made by Martin who had brainstem stroke; an incurable condition. The stroke occurred in 2008. As such, Martin focuses on ending his life by going to Switzerland and using the Dignitas service. Such is considered lawfully with reference to the Swiss law. Hence, Martin began making a proceeding that focused on compelling the DPP to modify and clarify his 2010 policy. Such a clarification would let the carers of Martin assist him to commit suicide without risking being prosecuted. His application was partially successful because of the ruling by the Court of Appeal that the policy of DPP of 2010 lacks clarity with reference to healthcare professionals. Judgment The Supreme Court on the majority of basis of seven is to two dismissed the appeal that Mr. Lamb and Mr. Nicklinson brought before the court. The court dismisses Martin’s cross-appeal while unanimously grants DPP appeal. The judgments stems from the nine justices. With reference to the first appeal, the court made a ruling that questioning of the current assisted suicide law on its compatibility with Article 8 it is for the United Kingdom to make a decision because it does not fall within the appreciation margins of United Kingdom (Dignity in Dying 2009). Thus, the judges indicate that Section 2 of the assisted suicide law does not have compatibility with Article 8 (Section 2 1961). Hence, the matter should be discussed by the Parliament and the courts have the ethical and moral obligation of respecting the assessment that the Parliament makes with reference to the pending issue. With reference to the second appeal, the Supreme Court grants DPP’s appeal. Hence, DPP judgment, differences in various essential factors and the need to make variations on the attached weight of each for independent cases remain in the public interest of the prosecution system. However, the cross-appeal by Martin does not emerge in the second appeal conclusions by the Supreme Court. The ruling of the judges in brief was as follows: Lord Neuberger delivered the leading judgment and Wilson and Mance agreed with his judgment. Kerr and Hale had a chance of making a declaration that there was incompatibility for the case. However, Hale made a consideration for the breach of constitutional requirements based on whether cases could be presented before the court without consideration of the policy, which was developed DPP. Reed, Hughes and Sumption made an adoption, which was close favorable to the arguments that the claimants in the case presented. Decision analysis On the first appeal of the compatibility of the law with article 8, the assisted suicide law falls in the United Kingdom appreciation. As such, it becomes a domestic question that the courts in United Kingdom cannot answer effectively without interfering with the 1998 Human Rights Act. It is also a general perception of the court that Section 2 and Article 8 need to be integrated for the purposes of addressing the assisted suicide law (General Medical Council 2013). For a democratic society, there is a need to protect the rights of individuals while at the same time preventing the development of unwanted morals and health conditions, crimes and granting freedom to all persons. Hence, the court had the constitutional authority of making a declaration that there was an incompatibility of the law. Personal Comment The ruling by the court was the best in all the two appeals and the cross-appeal by Martin. Such is because the court focused on the greater population than on individual interests. If the court granted that people can have assisted suicide without criminal prosecutions, such would create a loophole in modern society where murder cases would increase as persons would kill each other and claim it was assisted suicide. Thus, the court protected the society from unforeseen circumstances. Further, the court respects the Parliament, which is the institution, which is involved in the process of making laws and regulations that govern the nation. Hence, redirecting the issue for further assessment by Parliament gives an opportunity to ensure that there is equal representation of all persons in the process of making the laws that govern the society. The judgment by the court depicts a key cause of possible suicides in UK. This occurs because the appreciation margin of the UK’s incompatibility of different sections and article of the law. Individuals that focus on getting help on ending their lives now know that there is a new policy developed by the DPP (BMA 2009). As such, the policy of DPP indicates that compassionate help from carers, professionals and strangers may not be prosecuted at all because at times carers or professional help may turn-out to be of great importance. While the court focuses on liberalizing the law related to individuals who want to commit suicide, it has rejected the claimants’ cases. However, such a rejection was gentle, but the Parliament has the mandate of clarifying all issues effectively. However, the law may frighten medical doctors who may have be significant use to suffering persons. Such occurs in cases where the doctor’s fear going against the professional code of conduct and aim at delivering the best in terms of patient interests. Some patients could be suffering to an extent that the suffering is causing more pain and agony than termination of life. Thus, doctors will fear engaging in providing advice or assisting in termination of life in order to ensure that they are free from legal issues, which may harm their professional ethics. Nevertheless, the judgment is a progressive and major one with respect to incompatibility of the 1998 Human Rights Act and statute of the law under which the members tend to operate. Conclusion In conclusion, the case provides a clear illustration of an effective judicial system, which does not rush into making judgments based on articles and sections that contravene each other. Thus, the legislature focuses on depicting majority’s democratic will while protecting the interests of the minority to ensure that there is an equal and fair treatment in modern society. Bibliography BMA, 2009. End-of-life decisions: Views of the BMA, August 2009 Dignity in Dying, 2009. Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill General Medical Council, 2013. When a patient seeks advice or information about assistance to die, 31 January 2013, paragraph 4. “Nurses, undertakers and duty to die”, Times, 30 July 2009 R (Nicklinson and Lamb) v Ministry of Justice, R (AM) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] EWCA Civ 961. Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, as amended. Read More