Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
With the recently incoming bill on modern slavery, the Modern Slavery (Transparency in Supply Chains) Bill 2017, Kim Nihill at Corker Binning talks to Lawyer Monthly about the importance of companies ensuring that they have proper processes in place that enable them to identify compliance obligations under the Act.
‘SLAVES ON OUR STREETS’ bellowed the front page of the Evening Standard as they launched an investigation into modern slavery in London in collaboration with the Independent.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA) comprises three key criminal offences: slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour; Human Trafficking; and committing an offence with the intention to commit Human Trafficking. In addition, the Act created the Transparency in Supply obligation, which applies to commercial organisations in any sector that supplies goods or services, carries on a business or part of a business in the UK, and has a total annual turnover of £36 million or more. Although the commercial organisation must have a ‘demonstrable business presence’ within the UK to qualify and parent companies of UK subsidiaries are not automatically liable, parent companies that must themselves comply are encouraged to report on the business of their UK subsidiaries, even those that do not fall within the criteria of compliance.
These organisations are required to prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement for each fiscal year. The statement may include:
- The organisation’s structure, business and supply chains;
- The organisation’s policies in relation to slavery and human trafficking;
- The organisation’s due diligence processes in relation to slavery and human trafficking in its business and supply chains;
- The parts of the organisation’s business and supply chains where there is a risk of slavery and human trafficking occurring, and the steps it has taken to assess and manage that risk;
- The organisation’s effectiveness in ensuring that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chains, measured against such performance indicators as it considers appropriate;
- The training about slavery and human trafficking available to its staff.
As per a recent survey carried out by the Chartered Institute of Procurement & Supply, only one in ten UK supply chain managers say that they have found evidence of modern slavery in their supply chains since the MCA came into force. According to the same survey, approximately one third of UK companies required to complete a statement have so far failed to do so. Additionally, 60% of foreign companies required to comply have not. There does appear to be a lack of clarity as to what exactly the Act requires organisations to do. It has been reported that a number of the published statements are insufficient and do not comply with the obligations under the Act.
The Modern Slavery (Transparency in Supply Chains) Bill 2017, which recently (8th September 2017) had its second reading in Parliament, seeks to amend the MSA to make further provision for transparency in supply chains. By clarifying what must be included in the statement, the Bill forces organisations to provide reasons for failing to take steps to eradicate human trafficking and slavery. Furthermore, the Bill has even produced a list of all commercial organisations required to publish a transparency statement and bans organisations who fail to comply from participating in a public procurement.
Interestingly, however, the Bill does not propose to apply sanctions for failure to comply. However, what cannot – and should not – be ignored by those companies affected by this legislation, and perhaps even those who currently are not, is the devastating reputational damage that failure to engage in the Government’s efforts to eradicate this practice may lead to.
Reputational damage can be irreparable. The onus is very firmly on companies to reassure the public of their integrity, the integrity of their products and of their support of the international effort to eradicate modern slavery.
The Commission's approach to trafficking begins from a gender and human rights perspective and focuses on prevention, prosecution of criminals and protection of victims. This is reflected in the new Directive on trafficking in human beings, which was adopted on 21 March 2011.
'China has reversed an import ban on several types of soft and mould-ripened cheese, including Roquefort, Danish Blue, Gorgonzola and Stilton. The authorities imposed the ban in September because the strains of bacteria used to make the cheeses weren't approved in China. Quarantine officials lifted the ban over the weekend after a meeting with European Union officials.'
(Source: BBC)
Recent figures from the government show that from 2011-2015, eight cyclists have died as a result of carelessly-opened car doors. Cycling is more popular than ever, and a campaign launched by Cycling UK last month proposes a simple way to prevent so-called ‘car dooring’ accidents. But is it enough?
Robert Dempsey, personal injury lawyer at Roythornes Solicitors, shares his views on the new campaign and how it will hope to reduce the number of injuries.
In a letter to the transport minister, Cycling UK chief executive Paul Tuohy has called for public awareness surrounding the dangers of opening car doors without first checking if cyclists are passing by. Wholly preventable injuries, and in some cases fatalities, have been caused by what has become commonly known as ‘car dooring’.
Cycling UK wants to encourage drivers and passengers to adopt the ‘Dutch reach’. This is the practice of opening the car door with the hand furthest away from the door, an exercise adopted in Holland. The logic behind this concept is that people are forced to physically look around and check the blind spot. In addition, the organisation argues that there should be limits on how far the door can be opened. Equally important to Cycling UK is the implementation of tougher penalties for people that cause injury through the practice of ‘car dooring’.
So how helpful are these suggestions in practice? How do they add to the regulations already in place?
In terms of education and good practice, the Highway Code already provides some assistance, with cyclists being listed as ‘Road Users Requiring Extra Care’ especially at junctions and when pulling off. Specifically, to the issue of the dangers of car doors, road users ‘must ensure they do not hit anyone when opening a car door and check for cyclists’.
It is perhaps apparent why Cycling UK feels this does not go far enough. First and foremost the Highway Code is directed at and read by drivers and not passengers who of course present the same risk of ‘car dooring’. Secondly the advice to ‘check for cyclists’ is rather generic, whilst the ‘Dutch reach’ method provides a specific method to avoid accidents of this type.
The UK driving test is also an education opportunity which is perhaps not utilised to its full potential. The ‘show and tell’ section of the driving test requires the learner to answer questions about the vehicle and its safety, yet questions about the safe opening of car doors are currently not incorporated, a change which could easily be implemented.
The education of cyclists could also be improved. Cycling UK believes that all cyclists should be able to identify the ‘door zone’ and be taught to avoid this wherever possible. Clearer and more prevalent road markings to identify the ‘door zone’ and to give adequate space for cyclists and drivers alike would also help in this respect.
From a legal aspect, in the case of John Burridge v Air Work Ltd (2004) the court addressed the responsibility of cyclists, as well as drivers in the situation where a car door, or minibus door in this specific case, is opened into the path of a cyclist. In this detailed case, it was felt the cyclist had not contributed to his injuries but it remains conceivable how cyclists could be held partly at fault if they, for example, ride erratically or steer too close to parked cars.
The tragic case of Sam Harding highlights how ineffective the law presently is in this area. In 2011 Sam Harding was involved in a collision when Kenan Aydogdu opened his car door into Harding’s path. Harding was subsequently thrown under a following bus and was killed. Because the driver had parked, he could not be charged with Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. There was no other appropriate Road Traffic Offence which applied and after the Jury found him not guilty of Manslaughter, there was no remaining applicable punishment or penalty.
The present positon is set out under Section 105 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. It is stated “no person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.” The offence attracts a fine of up to £1,000. No penalty points are imposed on the offender’s licence.
This insignificant penalty may explain why Cycling UK chief executive Paul Tuohy feels that ‘car dooring’ is an offence around which awareness needs to be raised. There needs to be a greater understanding of the potential tragic consequences of car dooring, and the legal penalties need to be strengthened so that it is no longer wrongly seen as a minor offence.
(Source: Roythornes Solicitors)
Last week the Financial Conduct Authority stated that power of attorney should be granted online to make it easier to apply. Below Dawn Joughin, specialist private client lawyer at Excello Law, examines the suggested proposals and argues that these will leave the door open for high levels of abuse, should they be implemented.
Powers of Attorney are extremely powerful and complex documents, and the prospect of being able to take control of someone else’s bank account and even their property with the few clicks of a button is frankly reckless. Dawn will conclude that, if anything, the process should be tightened up.
In the relentless transfer of everyone’s business and personal lives to online only, the pace of digital change can leave some people left behind or vulnerable. Recent proposals from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), published in September, are a good example of this phenomenon. They relate to Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) with the suggestion that there is an ‘end-to-end digital system’ which would enable these important documents to be completed and registered exclusively online.
Demand has been increasing rapidly in recent years: more than 2.6 million individuals now have their LPAs registered with the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. But this process still requires a ‘wet signature’ - the physical signing of the document – necessary when registering an LPA with the OPG. What the FCA proposal suggests is that the entire process be digitised.
LPAs enable someone to appoint one or more trusted individuals who assume total control of another person’s assets and financial affairs as well as decisions about their future healthcare. They are invariably used by people who have been diagnosed with dementia, or similar conditions, which will eventually result in them losing the mental capacity to make decisions about their future. Inevitably, most of those who choose to use them are elderly.
The power and influence of the Internet’s silver surfers may be celebrated and encouraged by the media, but older people are still less likely to use digital or online technology on an everyday basis. However, the real problem is not in the level of their technological competence, but instead in the much-increased risk of fraud that an exclusively digital LPA system creates.
According to research from Action on Elder Abuse (AEA), a helpline charity, over 160,000 people over 65 are victims of financial abuse each year. By making the LPA process completely digital, that figure would only increase. AEA has said: “We believe the OPG’s online tool does not sufficiently address, warn against, and prevent the misuse of Powers of Attorney, thereby leaving older and vulnerable people open to accidental or intentional abuse.”
The FCA argue that an exclusively digital LPA would make it easier for everyone to use: "We would like to see the OPG and other authorities in the devolved administrations develop more customer-friendly approaches to setting up, registering, storing and understanding Lasting Power of Attorney”, states the FCA proposal.
However, abandoning any requirement for a wet signature potentially puts thousands of people at much greater risk of fraud and financial abuse. The law requires that an LPA is understood and consented to by the donor. But in the absence of any witness to the physical signature, precious little deterrent exists for a family member or friend to register a document fraudulently on someone else’s behalf, without their knowledge or consent.
Solicitors for the Elderly (SFE) recently published a report which outlined concerns that the current online LPS system leaves older and vulnerable people open to abuse. The report concludes that online LPAs show “a lack of consideration or checks to safeguard for vulnerable donors” and “the individual making the application can more easily become a victim of fraud or coercion.”
The FCA paper does anticipate problems in the following conclusion: “While the paper element of LPAs may be preferable to the current generations of older consumers and arguably reduces risk of fraud, in the longer term, creating a secure, centralised online database of registered LPAs could reduce administrative pressures on firms and carers by removing the need for physical paperwork, and reduce the length of time it takes to set up LPAs. This needs to be carefully balanced with consideration of potential risks of digital exclusion and cybercrime. Consumers who are less comfortable with digital interfaces need to be able to engage fully, regardless of their technological abilities.”
Dan Peachey is the Commercial Director at City Legal Translations - certified as the UK's fastest growing translation company in 2016 by the association of translation companies. Here Lawyer Monthly talks to Dan about what every good law firm should know about translation.
Q: How important is translation to the legal sector?
DAN: Legal translation accounts for five per cent of all translations and the legal translation sector is worth 2.3 billion US Dollars annually. Despite this, so many within the profession are unfamiliar with how to handle the foreign language elements of legal matters or treat them as an afterthought. The legal world relies on legal experts and for translation and interpreting, it should be no different.
Q: What are the consequences of not using a professional legal translator?
DAN: Inaccurate translations can cause a whole world of problems leading to wrongful convictions, damaged reputations, finances, transmitting liability or ownership to another party, businesses made or lost. There have been cases of properties being sold at the wrong price, or to the wrong person. These are not sensational examples; they are possible if legal documents are not translated correctly and professionally.
Q: What's the best approach to commissioning language services?
DAN: When it comes to commissioning language services, it pays to know about the different types available and where to source them. For example, do you know the difference between translation (dealing with the written word) and interpreting (dealing with the spoken word)?
Expert translation and interpreting should be provided by a Language Service Provider (LSP) affiliated to a professional trade body, such as the Association of Translation Companies or the Institute of Translation & Interpreting.
An LSP with specific experience of your sector will not only ensure accuracy and precision but also speed up the process. They will be familiar with terminology and styles of writing and will also have a wider knowledge of specific legal systems and areas of expertise.
Check the LSP uses experienced, mother tongue, legal expert translators.
You should also ensure the LSP can certify documents to the right level for legal use. There are a number of different levels, such as certified translation, notarised translation or sworn translation. It can be a bit of a minefield!
By working with an accredited translation company and you'll get the best results. City Legal works with more than 2000 legal translation experts and supports over 600 language combinations.
Q: What type of documents will need to be translated?
DAN: Anything and everything! We translate court judgments, witness statements, evidence, certificates such as marriage, birth, death as well as police checks, expert testimony and company formation documents such as Articles of Association and memoranda.
Q: What's involved with legal interpreting?
DAN: Legal interpreting needs to be carried out in a completely accurate and non-biased manner. We provide interpreters for a variety of reasons - in the court room or to take a witness statement, for example.
There are different types of interpreting including simultaneous or conference, consecutive and telephone interpreting, but a good LSP can guide you through this.
Q: How are translations costed?
The cost of the translation will depend on the length of the document, the content and the language combination required.
For example, countries with low levels of population such as Iceland or where the cost of living is high such as Scandinavia are generally more expensive. Before you compare LSPs, you should see what is included in the price, as some charge urgency fees, whilst some offer proofreading as part of a job automatically, whilst others charge this separately. Also, some companies offer Legal Aid rates in the relevant circumstances so make sure you tell the LSP upfront before they quote!
Q: Can't we just use Google Translate?
The world of automated or machine translation has been talked about so much lately, with Google Translate as the one everyone knows best! Such tools can be useful for translating large documents where there is a lot of repetition. However, translations for the legal sector need to be precise, accurate and exact, with confidentiality at the heart of the process. Therefore, legal documents do not naturally fit the profile for technology-based translations and often 'legalese' may not have precise equivalents in another language while a simple rephrasing of sentences may cause confusion and transmit liability or ownership to another party. Steer clear!
As part of our law school & careers features, for paralegals, newly graduates, and those simply hoping to jump into an exciting world of law, here Andrea Hall, Founder and Principle of US based The Hall Law Office, LLC, talks to Lawyer Monthly about choosing a legal career path that will satisfy your needs, challenge your expertise, and suit your personality best.
Your personality is what will help you determine what type of law you should practice. This is something you should really consider before you pick an area of practice. If you are a litigator sitting in a corporate office writing contracts isn’t going to make you happy. If you are someone who likes to be alone working on projects then working a trial case that is high profile will scare the be Jesus out of you. Here are some things to think about before picking an area of expertise.
Where do you put your energy and how do you renew your energy? Do you prefer to spend time with other people (Extroversion), or are you happier spending time alone (Introversion)? Everyone has tendencies of both, yet most people have a tendency to lean strongly one way or the other. Let’s look at them more in-depth:
Extroversion
Being an extrovert means you get most of your energy from being active and spending time with people. If being in a large group of friends energizes you, you probably lean more towards being an extrovert. Extroverts also tend to feel confident and comfortable when speaking to large groups of people, being a team leader, and giving direction. See if these statements fit your personality:
These are all traits of strongly extroverted people. Can you relate?
Introversion
Introverts gain their energy from within; they like to think through ideas, plan responses in their head, and live in an inner world. They are more comfortable on their own or with only one or two friends. They like to think a project or idea through and make a plan before getting started, taking time to formulate a clear picture of the result they want. Do these sound like you:
If you can relate to these statements, you probably lean more towards being an introvert.
Are you a logical thinker and process all the facts or do you tend to make “gut instinct” decisions? Do you rely on facts and principles or do you think about the people involved and make heart-felt decisions?
Thinking
Thinking means that you like to review all the facts, find the bottom-line truth of a situation, and make a logical, well thought out decision. You tend to analyze the pros and cons of a situation, even making a list of them. And you don’t let other people’s desires influence your decision. See if this sounds like you:
If you can relate to most or all of these, then you lean more towards being a thinker than a feeler.
Feeling
If you are concerned about other people, how they feel and their points-of-view, then you are more of a Feeling person. You tend to be concerned with values and how your decisions will affect other people. You like to create harmony and you are a warm, caring, and considerate person. These probably sound a lot like you:
If you’re saying “that’s me” then you are definitely a feeler.
Really determine who you are naturally not who someone else wants you to be. This will help determine your area of expertise and how you choose to practice law throughout your career. Have fun exploring different areas of law and your personality. Not every person is cut out for litigation and not everyone wants to work in an office without contact to the outside world. The truth is every position is needed just make sure it is the best fit for you.
SFO specialist journalist Dominic Carman here discusses with Lawyer Monthly the SFO's announcement of its annual report at the Cambridge Symposium on Economic Crime. Dominic argues that income generated should not be what we base the SFO's success on, rather we should be pushing the SFO to achieve convictions that result in serious fraudsters going to prison.
David Green, Director of the Serious Fraud Office recently gave his final annual report to the Cambridge Symposium on Economic Crime, of which he also Director. When reviewing the work done by the SFO over the last year, he said that the agency ‘polices a discrete part of the waterfront’ investigating and prosecuting serious and complex fraud, bribery and corruption. ‘We are part of the pursue strand, and contribute to prevention through deterrence,’ he added.
In 2016/17, the SFO’s caseload included: Libor, Rolls-Royce, Tesco, Barclays, GSK, Airbus, BAT, Unaoil, and Petrofac, among others. Big names which have resulted in big investigations, and for some, prosecutions. When determining what and whom to investigate, he defined his ‘take-on criteria’ to be where ‘the apparent criminality undermines UK Plc’s commercial or financial interests in general, or the City of London in particular.’ He cited the complexity of Rolls-Royce, which involved 30 million documents, as an example.
Turning to the highlights of the year, Green said that the most significant were the Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), in particular that with Rolls-Royce. DPAs allow a prosecution to be suspended for a defined period, provided the organisation meets certain specified conditions. They can be used for fraud, bribery and other economic crime, but apply only to organisations, and never individuals.
Last year, DPAs agreed by the SFO totalled £640 million in financial penalties and costs, of which Rolls-Royce comprised the lion’s share: more than £510m (a £497.25m fine plus costs). That was after the company received ‘a 50% discount’ from the SFO according to Green - equivalent to a year’s profit - for fully complying and acknowledging that it had been involved in sustained bribery covering seven jurisdictions over thirty years.
‘DPAs have been a real success,’ suggested Green in his speech ‘enabling cooperative companies to account for conduct to a court in a transparent way without sustaining a criminal conviction, or the collateral damage (including disbarment), that may well follow. The company is able to draw a line under the past and radically to overhaul compliance and removing the board on whose watch the conduct took place.’
Green then asked the following: ‘What sort of value for money does the SFO provide to the British taxpayer?’ Responding to his own question, he said: ‘Over the period April 2014 to date, the SFO has cost the taxpayer £216m. Over the same period, we have generated £676m in DPA receipts and costs. That is a net contribution of £460m to the Treasury over four years, equivalent to approximately £1m per member of SFO staff.’
So, thanks entirely to Rolls-Royce, each member of SFO staff has made an average net contribution of £1m to the Treasury. But is that really the right criterion by which to judge a fraud agency? If its mandate is to investigate, prosecute and, hopefully, convict criminals - albeit they are typically criminals with money, status and reputation - should there be congratulations when heavy fines are paid, but the individuals responsible for that criminality pay no price, least of all with their liberty.
Apart from fraud, for what other serious crime might a criminal escape conviction, and likely incarceration, by paying a fine instead. Excepting terrorism, serious crimes of violence, or those of a sexual nature, what of the jewel thief, the cat burglar, or the (unarmed) bank robber? The man who steals a famous painting, an expensive car, or valuable silver. If they walked free from court, save for a hefty fine, would anyone be celebrating?
Would Dame Cressida Dick, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, ever call a press conference to announce: ‘What sort of value for money does the Met provide to the British taxpayer? We arrested X thousand serious thieves and burglars last year. And although none of them have been convicted or gone to prison, because of the fines they’ve paid, we have managed to contribute to the Treasury £Xm - the equivalent of £1m for every police man and woman in London. Which is very good value.’
Of course, serious fraud has its own distinct challenges: evidence is often weighty and complex; cases usually take considerable time and resources to bring; convictions can be difficult to achieve. But the men and women who perpetrate it are ordinary criminals, just like the thief, burglar or robber. They are not extraordinary because their crime is fraud, even if the opportunity to commit serious fraud is usually confined to those with some degree of affluence and power.
Members of the public might therefore be unconvinced that justice for their crimes is best served by substantial fines, paid for by their company, as they get off scot-free. On the contrary, they may see large organisations with very deep pockets, like Rolls-Royce, buying their way out of trouble, walking away from court with a great big financial slap on the wrists, while no past or present Rolls-Royce employee or director goes to prison for offences running into tens or possibly hundreds of millions of pounds. And yet many people must have been knowingly involved at Rolls-Royce in a sustained pattern of bribery in seven countries over 30 years, including senior employees who sanctioned those payments.
The SFO’s magnanimity does not arise because we are reluctant as a country to lock people up. Quite the opposite. Our prison population has increased by more than 50% in less than a generation to nearly 86,000. Of those sentenced last year, more than 70% had committed a non-violent crime, thousands of them for repeated thefts or burglaries where the amount stolen was worth less than £10,000. Without money, status or reputation, these criminals may be seen as the unlucky many.
Rather than celebrating its status as £1m-a-head revenue generators, the SFO should perhaps be actively piercing the corporate veil in serious fraud to get to the men and women responsible for committing serious crime involving millions of pounds. Agreeing an enormous penalty (including a 50% discount) with a big company, and allowing guilty people to walk free, should not really cause too much self-congratulation.
In achieving value for money, Green’s prevention through deterrence strategy - pour encourager les autres - can only be seen as a real success if there are many more convictions of serious fraudsters that result in them going to prison. It should not be measured by large fines levied on their employers. To many, these represent no more than A Get Out of Jail Free card for the lucky few.
Esther Woodhouse, Associate Member of Chartered Institute of Legal Executives and Probate specialist lawyer at Roythornes said: “The online service is part of wider Government plans to reform the justice system and deliver a modern service to improve the efficiency of the probate application process.
“Although I agree with the move to enhance the procedure, I am concerned the system could be abused by unscrupulous applicants if there are not effective safeguards in place to protect vulnerable people and their assets.
“Robust measures need to be put in place to ensure applications are only being made by those with the authority to do so. This is very important particularly if an oath is no longer required to be sworn in person by either a solicitor and/or commissioner for oaths.
“It is also important to note the online process may not be appropriate in all circumstances, for example when executors are not aware of their appointment until after the people who have chosen them to care for their assets have passed away. In these instances, legal assistance is advised to ensure executors fully understand the details of the estates.
“The change in the probate application process should reduce administration costs, and therefore it does not correlate with the proposed hike in probate court fees, which if imposed will cause financial burden to many bereaved families. I would have thought the new online system would lead to a reduction in probate court fees, and would urge the government to reconsider its proposal to put these costs up.”
Applying for probate can be a time-consuming and lengthy process, and it is vital people are provided with the support needed to carry this out correctly. Roythornes has one of the largest private client teams in the Midlands and has considerable expertise in acting for landowners, large scale agri-businesses as well as individuals, both locally and across the whole country.
(Source: Roythornes Solicitors)
In a recent court case, Noel Conway, who suffers from terminal motor neurone disease, appealed against a previous court decision to reject his right to assisted suicide. Conway argues that the Suicide Act 1961 is in conflict with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act of 1998. Below, Gemma Lindfield, Barrister at 5 St Andrew's Hill, discusses the case in a little more detail, providing her own opinion on the matter of assisted suicide and human rights.
The recent case of Conway v. SSHD [2017] EWHC 2447 (Admin) once more examined the issue of assisted suicide. The claimant Mr Conway suffers from Motor Neurone Disease (MND). In his own words he described the disease as “a relentless and merciless process of progressive deterioration.” He sought a declaration that section of the Suicide Act 1961, which criminalises assistance of an act of suicide, constitutes an interference with Mr Conway’s right of respect for his private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It was accepted by the SSHD that section 2 of the 1961 Act did represent an interference with Article 8(1) of the ECHR. It was submitted, however that was justified by Article 8(2), which allows for qualification of Article 8 rights if its in the interest, of among other things, public safety, prevention of crime and for the protection of health and morals. The Government pointed to the European Court of Human Rights decision in Nicklinson v United Kingdom (2015) 61 EHRR SE7 which affirmed that section 2 was a justified qualification for the purpose of Article 8(2).
Mr Conway advanced an alternative statutory structure that it was submitted would safeguard competing legitimate interest and would protect the vulnerable. At the end of the process it was suggested that permission to commit assisted suicide ought to be authorised by a High Court judge who would have to consider whether the criteria had been met. In the lengthy judgment, the Divisional Court rejected Mr Conway’s claim.
The judgment is interesting reading for the rationale behind the strenuous opposition of the BMA, other medical organisations and charities. There was an overwhelming concern by disability charities that severely disabled persons would be seen as a burden and assisted suicide would be utilised to relive pressure on resources. In a worst-case scenario, severely disabled persons may feel under pressure, from a lack of resources, to end their life prematurely. In the current political climate, this is a justified anxiety. Although it is very regrettable that Mr Conway cannot have a measure of control about the way in which he will die, the legal system must protect the most vulnerable in society.
