During earlier Parliamentary debates upon Assisted Dying several Peers and MPs expressed their fears that the “safeguards” contained in Bills such as Lord Falconer’s were not strong enough. “Two doctors”, they felt, was not enough. Peers, in particular, were keen that the doctor’s opinions should also be signed off by a High Court Judge. So, in consequence, a role for Judges has now been included in the current Leadbeater Bill.
This inclusion was not sufficiently thought through. It was clearly intended to increase Parliamentary support for the new Bill It seems that its effect has been the opposite. Several opponents of the Bill are now saying that the role of the Judges is one of their biggest concerns.
The Justice Secretary has already said she is opposed. No one has said how much the Judges’ involvement will cost, how they will be trained for the task, how much time it will take or whether there will be any right of appeal. In short, it’s beginning to look a bit like a dog’s dinner.
Perhaps most powerfully of all, as one of the Bill’s opponents (Sir Alec Shelbrooke MP) has pointed out, Judges are supposed to take judicial decisions. They are not supposed to get involved in basic issues of administration.
A judicial role like this has not been tried in any other countries. It is too soon to say whether or not it will find a place in England and Wales but it will certainly get a rough ride during the Committee Stage of the Bill.
