This very muchly.
The fact that he was refused denial to go to another country where it is legal too for fear his wife and accomplices would be jailed just adds to the courts ( no other way of putting it ) cuntish behaviour.
(
Chilli Heatwave ,shit, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 14:23,
Reply)
It really isn't.
While there is such a thing as judge-made law, it doesn't follow that the judges could do whatever the hell they liked: they're still bound by statute and precedent, and can only create law where statute or precedent are unclear or in internal conflict.
The Suicide Act says what it says, and their Lordships can't change that. If you read the ruling, they're sypathetic to the plight of the plaintiffs - but there's nothing they could have done.
As to whether there would be a prosecution: the chances are that there wouldn't be, because it wouldn't be in the public interest.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 14:42,
Reply)
If such laws are set in concrete to that extent - why even bother with the courts then?
Other than as a media showcase to raise awareness the lawyers must have known it wasn't going to come to anything, unless there is far greater flexibility than you give credit for. Judges have been known to set precedent often to the dismay of the public, surely a judge can take a stand and set precedent with his/her ruling? If not then the whole thing is a nonsense of bureaucracy.
(
maiden is filmed before a live studio audience, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 16:14,
Reply)
As per my blog post,
I'm not wholly convinced that the case should have come to court.
I mean: Nicklinson's legal team was trying to show that the law could accommodate what they were after via the doctrine of necessity and Article 8 rights - but I think that their case was incredibly flimsy, especially after the Pretty ruling dismissed her Art. 8 claims (correctly, in my view).
EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION, 16:30: By this, I mean that the role of the judge in cases like this is to adjudicate when there's an ambiguity in the law (as determined by statute and precedent). But I don't see that there was any real ambiguity here. I think that the Nicklinson case was more about pushing the boundaries - which is why their Lordships ruled as they did: cf paras 150 and 151 of the ruling.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 22 Aug 2012, 16:26,
Reply)