MPs Remove High Court Oversight from Assisted Dying Bill

MPs have voted to eliminate the requirement for a High Court judge to approve assisted dying requests, a move critics say weakens protections for vulnerable individuals.

Kim Leadbeater’s Bill committee voted 15 to seven in favour of removing the judicial safeguard, which had been considered a key measure in ensuring the safety of the Terminally Ill (End of Life) Bill.

Initially introduced by the Spen Valley MP in November, the Bill would allow terminally ill adults with less than six months to live to seek medical assistance to die. Under the original proposal, cases required approval from two doctors and a High Court judge. However, MPs have now opted to replace judicial oversight with a three-member panel consisting of a psychiatrist, a social worker, and a lawyer. The panel’s decisions will be overseen by a voluntary assisted dying commissioner, with Parliament set to vote on the system once all existing clauses have been reviewed.

A group of Labour MPs opposed to the change argued that removing the High Court’s involvement “fundamentally weakens the protections for the vulnerable.” Critics also raised concerns that under the new system, witnesses would no longer be required to give evidence under oath or be compelled to testify. Conservative MP Danny Kruger warned that the decision strips the Bill of a key “gold-plated” safeguard, saying it “totally transforms” the legislation. He also pointed out that MPs had not consulted expert opinions on the proposed alternative.

The amendment follows concerns from retired judges who warned that requiring High Court approval would place excessive strain on an already overburdened court system.

However, Leadbeater defended the decision, arguing that the new panel would provide stronger protections. She told MPs the approach offers “additional patient-centred safeguards” by incorporating a broader range of expertise, calling it “a strength, not a weakness.” Supporting this view, barrister Sarah Sackman KC emphasised that the decision was based on policy rather than capacity concerns, stating: “The High Court stage could be made to work, but if Parliament elects for the commissioner and panel model, then the State will work to deliver that.”

Kruger remained unconvinced, dismissing the proposed panel as “not a judicial entity in any sense,” and describing it as a “quasi multi-disciplinary team at the wrong stage of the process for the wrong purpose.”

The judicial safeguard had been a key factor in securing support for the Bill’s second reading. On November 29, 61 MPs cited the High Court’s role in their decision to back the legislation, with 20 more referencing the importance of judicial protections.