Terminally ill man wins right to challenge assisted dying law

A man who is terminally ill with motor neurone disease has been given the go-ahead for a legal challenge against the law on assisted dying.

Retired college lecturer Noel Conway took his case to the Court of Appeal after he was refused permission to bring a judicial review over the blanket ban on providing a person with assistance to die.

Mr Conway, 67, from Shrewsbury, was diagnosed with the disease in November 2014 and is not expected to live beyond 12 months.

His lawyers say that when he has less than six months to live and retains the mental capacity to make the decision, "he would wish to be able to enlist assistance to bring about a peaceful and dignified death".

He wants a declaration that the Suicide Act 1961 is incompatible with Article 8, which relates to respect for private and family life, and Article 14, which protects from discrimination.

On Wednesday in London, Lord Justice McFarlane and Lord Justice Beatson granted permission and remitted the case to the High Court to determine.

Before his illness, Mr Conway, who is married, with a son, daughter, stepson and grandchild, was fit and active, enjoying hiking, cycling and travelling.

He now uses a wheelchair and ventilation equipment and was not in court.

His counsel, Richard Gordon QC, said he wished "to die in the country in which he was born and has lived for his whole adult life.

"The choices facing him therefore are stark: to seek to bring about his own death now whilst he is physically able to do but before he is ready; or await death with no control over when and how it comes."

Mr Conway contended that these choices, forced upon him by the provisions of the criminal law, violated his human rights.

The case follows that brought by Tony Nicklinson, who suffered from paralysis after a stroke.

That was ultimately dismissed in 2014 by the Supreme Court, which said it was important that Parliament debated the issues before any decision was made by the courts.

Mr Conway's case is different in that he has a terminal illness and his legal team are setting out strict criteria and clear potential safeguards to protect the vulnerable from any abuse of the system.

His lawyers attacked the High Court's majority decision that it remained "institutionally inappropriate" for a court to make a declaration of incompatibility.

It said that, after the Nicklinson case, both the House of Commons and the House of Lords had debated the issue, with the result that Parliament had decided, at least for the moment, not to provide for legislative exceptions to the 1961 Act.