*/
Job title: Silk, Doughty Street Chambers
Doughty Street Chambers is a human rights and civil liberties practice with a national and international profile in criminal, civil, administrative, public and international law.
You represented Tony Nicklinson – who suffered ‘locked-in’ syndrome - in his landmark case challenging the law on assisted dying. How did you become involved in that case?
Tony’s case is a progression of the work I have done throughout my career around autonomy and choice. I have a public law and human rights practice which emphasises, among others, the rights of persons with disabilities. Autonomy links the right to make end of life decisions with, for example, the right of disabled persons to live independently in the community, and both are features of my practice. I represented Debbie Purdy in her successful appeal to the House of Lords which resulted in the DPP issuing his guidelines on prosecution in assisted suicide cases. The solicitor in Debbie Purdy’s case, Saimo Chahal, and I have worked together for many years so it was a natural fit for us to do so again for Tony and his family, who are carrying on the case now Tony has died.
Who ‘owns’ an individual’s body?
We should have the right to choose what is done to our bodies. The difficulty arises when what we ask is that someone else assists us in ending our lives. The law which criminalised suicide was only abolished in 1961 and many still fear that if assistance in suicide or euthanasia was legalised it would diminish the importance that, as a society, we place upon life. This might put older and disabled people under pressure to end their lives in order not to be a ‘burden’ to their families and encourage unscrupulous individuals to ‘assist’ a vulnerable relative to end their life for financial reasons. Another fear is that to relax the laws on assisted dying will undermine the trust between doctors and their patients. These are all rational fears, but they are not borne out by the evidence. In those countries where assisted suicide or euthanasia is lawful and suitable protective mechanisms are in place (the Benelux countries and the US states of Washington and Oregon) there is no evidence that vulnerable people are at greater risk. It tends to be better-educated – and usually better-off – individuals who make the choice to end their lives. The trust placed by patients in their doctors is not undermined: in the Netherlands, doctors enjoy approval ratings that exceed those of their counterparts in the UK. And euthanasia already takes place on a significant scale here, but it is underground and unregulated - and therefore unsafe. So I see no justification for forcing those suffering from conditions which make their lives unbearable, and for which there is no prospect of relief by any other lawful means, to remain in that state until carried off by a ‘natural death’. The challenge is to persuade the courts that – if Parliament continues to ignore it - this is an issue that only they can remedy.
What have been some of the highlights in your career?
Cases that have gone on to set a precedent like Debbie Purdy’s are the main highlights, and there have been a number of those. My work on behalf of people with mental disorders led to landmark judgments here and in Europe and significant legislative changes. And I have been involved in several leading cases involving those who die in custody and the rights of their loved ones. But sometimes the cases that mean the most are the small ones that nevertheless make a real difference to someone’s life. Debbie Purdy’s case of course meant an awful lot to her, and many others. But I will always treasure one early victory in a discrimination claim for a young woman with learning disabilities who was barred from a pub because she was ‘putting off the customers’. I still have the thank-you note she sent me afterwards. It is just as important – because it is so prevalent - to combat small-scale, thoughtless injustice as it is the large-scale and the malicious, which is thankfully much rarer.
To what do you credit your success?
Doing something I love, with a lot of freedom, a bit of showmanship and a sense of occasionally making a difference - and a very supportive wife who sustained us financially during several lean years. My parents instilled a strong public service ethic, but with a non-conformist and critical edge. Volunteering at Brixton Law Centre after University showed me that I could make a difference to people’s lives. And finding a home among like-minded colleagues at Doughty Street has been crucial.
Where do you see yourself in ten years?
My immediate ambition is to be involved in shaping the law in my core areas of mental health and capacity law, police actions and deaths in custody, equality law and health law, with an eye to the future in other areas such as appellate and public law crime, national security and international law. But I am very worried about the impact of Government legal aid reforms on access to justice for vulnerable people and the future viability of the publicly funded legal profession. So if in ten years I can still represent those clients, I have a healthy practice and some kind of work life balance, with time to spend with my family and do the other things that I love – that would suit me fine.
Paul Bowen QC was interviewed by Guy Hewetson of Hewetson Shah.
Who ‘owns’ an individual’s body?
We should have the right to choose what is done to our bodies. The difficulty arises when what we ask is that someone else assists us in ending our lives. The law which criminalised suicide was only abolished in 1961 and many still fear that if assistance in suicide or euthanasia was legalised it would diminish the importance that, as a society, we place upon life. This might put older and disabled people under pressure to end their lives in order not to be a ‘burden’ to their families and encourage unscrupulous individuals to ‘assist’ a vulnerable relative to end their life for financial reasons. Another fear is that to relax the laws on assisted dying will undermine the trust between doctors and their patients. These are all rational fears, but they are not borne out by the evidence. In those countries where assisted suicide or euthanasia is lawful and suitable protective mechanisms are in place (the Benelux countries and the US states of Washington and Oregon) there is no evidence that vulnerable people are at greater risk. It tends to be better-educated – and usually better-off – individuals who make the choice to end their lives. The trust placed by patients in their doctors is not undermined: in the Netherlands, doctors enjoy approval ratings that exceed those of their counterparts in the UK. And euthanasia already takes place on a significant scale here, but it is underground and unregulated - and therefore unsafe. So I see no justification for forcing those suffering from conditions which make their lives unbearable, and for which there is no prospect of relief by any other lawful means, to remain in that state until carried off by a ‘natural death’. The challenge is to persuade the courts that – if Parliament continues to ignore it - this is an issue that only they can remedy.
What have been some of the highlights in your career?
Cases that have gone on to set a precedent like Debbie Purdy’s are the main highlights, and there have been a number of those. My work on behalf of people with mental disorders led to landmark judgments here and in Europe and significant legislative changes. And I have been involved in several leading cases involving those who die in custody and the rights of their loved ones. But sometimes the cases that mean the most are the small ones that nevertheless make a real difference to someone’s life. Debbie Purdy’s case of course meant an awful lot to her, and many others. But I will always treasure one early victory in a discrimination claim for a young woman with learning disabilities who was barred from a pub because she was ‘putting off the customers’. I still have the thank-you note she sent me afterwards. It is just as important – because it is so prevalent - to combat small-scale, thoughtless injustice as it is the large-scale and the malicious, which is thankfully much rarer.
To what do you credit your success?
Doing something I love, with a lot of freedom, a bit of showmanship and a sense of occasionally making a difference - and a very supportive wife who sustained us financially during several lean years. My parents instilled a strong public service ethic, but with a non-conformist and critical edge. Volunteering at Brixton Law Centre after University showed me that I could make a difference to people’s lives. And finding a home among like-minded colleagues at Doughty Street has been crucial.
Where do you see yourself in ten years?
My immediate ambition is to be involved in shaping the law in my core areas of mental health and capacity law, police actions and deaths in custody, equality law and health law, with an eye to the future in other areas such as appellate and public law crime, national security and international law. But I am very worried about the impact of Government legal aid reforms on access to justice for vulnerable people and the future viability of the publicly funded legal profession. So if in ten years I can still represent those clients, I have a healthy practice and some kind of work life balance, with time to spend with my family and do the other things that I love – that would suit me fine.
Paul Bowen QC was interviewed by Guy Hewetson of Hewetson Shah.
Job title: Silk, Doughty Street Chambers
Doughty Street Chambers is a human rights and civil liberties practice with a national and international profile in criminal, civil, administrative, public and international law.
You represented Tony Nicklinson – who suffered ‘locked-in’ syndrome - in his landmark case challenging the law on assisted dying. How did you become involved in that case?
Tony’s case is a progression of the work I have done throughout my career around autonomy and choice. I have a public law and human rights practice which emphasises, among others, the rights of persons with disabilities. Autonomy links the right to make end of life decisions with, for example, the right of disabled persons to live independently in the community, and both are features of my practice. I represented Debbie Purdy in her successful appeal to the House of Lords which resulted in the DPP issuing his guidelines on prosecution in assisted suicide cases. The solicitor in Debbie Purdy’s case, Saimo Chahal, and I have worked together for many years so it was a natural fit for us to do so again for Tony and his family, who are carrying on the case now Tony has died.
Chair of the Bar finds common ground on legal services between our two jurisdictions, plus an update on jury trials
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
An interview with Rob Wagg, CEO of New Park Court Chambers
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
With at least 31 reports of AI hallucinations in UK legal cases – over 800 worldwide – and judges using AI to assist in judicial decision-making, the risks and benefits are impossible to ignore. Matthew Lee examines how different jurisdictions are responding
What has changed, and why? Paul Secher unpacks the new standards aligning the recruiting, training and appraising of judges – the first major change to the system for ten years
The deprivation of liberty is the most significant power the state can exercise. Drawing on frontline experience, Chris Henley KC explains why replacing trial by jury with judge-only trials risks undermining justice
Baffled by the government’s proposed s 41 reforms and by the Law Commission’s preferred model, Laura Hoyano looks at what won’t work, and what will
