p.p1 party didn’t breach art 8(1); they
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.
0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; font: 12.0px ‘Helvetica Neue’; color: #454545} p.
p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; font: 12.0px ‘Helvetica Neue’; color: #454545; min-height: 14.0px} THE CASES In the Pretty case, the courts at first held that the Suicide Act 1961 didn’t violate her rights under art 8 and 14 from the HRA, this case was brought to the European Court of Human Rights in which it was held that they did violate her rights under art.8 (1) because she had the right to choose how to die, and involving a third party didn’t breach art 8(1); they also held that art 8(2) justified the breach of art.
8(1), because it protected the vulnerable people that could be influenced to commit suicide this way. The only way for people in cases like Pretty’s to die a dignified death at the time of their choosing would be if the courts declared an incompatibility between Suicide Act 1961 s.2 and Human Rights Act 1998 art.8.Although the Courts could have declared an incompatibility after the Pretty case to prevent more people in cases like hers to die an undignified death, they choose against doing so. If they would have filed a declaration of incompatibility, they would not have gone against the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, because declarations of incompatibility are within the Court’s jurisdiction according to Human Rights Act 1998 s.4 (2).
What prevented them from doing so? the most likely answer would be that there are many moral discussions about assisted suicide, and making a decision would have brought a conflict of interests not only morally but also about the extent of the Court’s powers when it comes to a final dictum.Other cases in which Lord Neuberger and other judges abstained from declaring incompatibility between HRA 1998 art 8 and the suicide act 196 are the Nicklinson case in which they agreed on the incompatibility but didn’t declare it, choosing instead to bring the matter to Parliament for them to discuss, this resulted in the decision of keeping the law unchanged. It should also be taken into consideration that, even if the Courts made a declaration of incompatibility, Parliament is in their own right of keeping the law unchanged according to the Human Rights Act 1998 s.4 (6) therefore leading to the same result they got from the Nicklinson case.Since then another case, Conway came, but the courts still refused to declare incompatibility because now not only would they be going against precedent but also because Parliament is currently considering an Assisted dying Bill thus, being the sensible thing not to declare incompatibility while there is an on-going legislative process, because if they did it would be seen as institutionally inappropriate.
