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)