Thread by @AdamWagner1

Some big news. The Suicide Act 1961 makes it illegal to encourage or assist suicide. Today a legal challenge has been launched by Phil Newby, a man with motor neurone disease, to change that. I am on the legal team led by @paulebowen

(Thread)

crowdjustice.com/case/right-to-…

@paulebowen 2/ Phil Newby is just 43. Because of MND he is unable to walk or use his hands. As he deteriorates, he won't be allowed to choose to end his own life: "I’m staring down the barrel of an undignified, drawn-out death because of an out of date, cruel law."

@paulebowen 3/ The ultimate aim of the case is to change the law to make assisted suicide legal. It is not the first human rights challenge on this issue - the courts have looked at this issue a number of times, e.g. Nicklinson, Purdy, Pretty, Omid T, Lamb. Why will this time be different?

4/ The hugely experienced legal team (@paulebowen, Jenny McCloud, Saimo Chahal QC at @BindmansLLP) and I will be taking a new approach which we believe will lead to a change in the law of assisted suicide and could alter the way courts consider human rights cases of this type.

@paulebowen @BindmansLLP 5/ In Nicklinson (supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uks…) the UK Supreme Court decided by a 7-2 majority that the ban on assisted suicide didn't breach human rights laws.

But.

By 5-4 majority it decided the court had the constitutional authority to find the law incompatible if it wanted to

@paulebowen @BindmansLLP 6/ Both Lords Neuberger and Mance were concerned that the Court couldn't reach a reasoned conclusion because they were lacking primary factual evidence about risks and benefits of changing the law, as had been available to the Canadian Constitutional Court in a case called Carter

@paulebowen @BindmansLLP 7/ Lord Neuberger said it there were "too many uncertainties" to justify declaring the law incompatible with the Human Rights Act, and then set out the kind of issues which would need to be considered and adjudicated upon by the courts in order to decide the issue

8/ Lord Sumption (for it is he!) was also concerned the material before the Court, which was mostly taken from the detailed, weeks long fact finding exercise undertaken by the Canadian Constitutional Court in Carter, was "untested, incomplete and second-hand". Lord Wilson agreed

9/ So Phil Newby's case is different because we will take up the challenge set by the Supreme Court, to properly test the evidence as to the risks and benefits of legalising assisted suicide. This will be by way of a live evidence hearing with cross examination of experts

10/ This is the approach tried in Omid T's case, and rejected by the High Court (bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…). Sadly, Omid T died before an appeal could be brought. The Court of Appeal suggested the approach is not available in the Conway case (para 189) bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/…

11/ Phil Newby's case is that courts must do what Lords Neuberger, Wilson and Mance (and to an extent others) said must be done - conduct a hearing where factual and expert evidence on assisted suicide can be assessed. Otherwise, how can the courts ever reach a conclusion?

12/ For this approach to work, we will need to return the issue to the Supreme Court, and then back down to the High Court for a full hearing. This is going to take time and money, but it's for such an important issue. You can support here - thank you crowdjustice.com/case/right-to-…

13/ Ultimately Parliament, through the Human Rights Act, gave courts the solemn responsibility to opine on fundamentally important issues. In Nicklinson, the Supreme Court said it didn't have enough evidence. We now need to provide it for them crowdjustice.com/case/right-to-…

* apologies, tweet /2 should have read that Phil Newby was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in 2014 at 43, he isn't 43 now