Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority v Amicus Healthcare Ltd. & Ors

Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority v Amicus Healthcare Ltd. & Ors

It is lawful for the HFEA to decide not to take regulatory action against the clinic for storing embryos without the effective consent of the fourth defendant pending the outcome of proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights and any consequential legislation or expiry of the statutory storage period. It was lawful for the DPP to indicate that prosecution would not be in the public interest in these circumstances and to set out the policy factors relevant to future prosecutorial discretion. The court declined to grant a declaration as to substantive legitimate expectation, leaving the clinic to rely on its own legal advice.

Parties
Claimant: Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority; First Defendant: Amicus Healthcare Limited; Second Defendant: Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust; Third Defendant: Natallie Evans; Fourth Defendant: Howard Johnston; Interested Party: Secretary of State for Health; Interested Party: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Declaratory Relief / Judgment on Application for Declarations
Outcome
First and second declarations granted; third declaration refused.
Legal Topics
Embryo Storage, Licensing Discretion, Legitimate Expectation, Criminal Prosecution Discretion, European Convention on Human Rights, Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act 1990
Public Law Health Law Human Rights Embryo Storage Licensing Discretion Legitimate Expectation Criminal Prosecution Discretion European Convention on Human Rights +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority

Claimant

Amicus Healthcare Limited

First Defendant

Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

Second Defendant

Natallie Evans

Third Defendant

Howard Johnston

Fourth Defendant

Secretary of State for Health

Interested Party

Director of Public Prosecutions

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Declaratory Relief / Judgment on Application for Declarations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is lawful for the HFEA to refrain from regulatory action against the clinic for storing embryos without effective consent pending ECHR proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the DPP's indication not to prosecute is lawful
  3. 3 Whether the clinic can rely on decisions of the HFEA and DPP as a matter of substantive legitimate expectation

Ratio Decidendi

It is lawful for the HFEA to decide not to take regulatory action against the clinic for storing embryos without the effective consent of the fourth defendant pending the outcome of proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights and any consequential legislation or expiry of the statutory storage period. It was lawful for the DPP to indicate that prosecution would not be in the public interest in these circumstances and to set out the policy factors relevant to future prosecutorial discretion. The court declined to grant a declaration as to substantive legitimate expectation, leaving the clinic to rely on its own legal advice.

Court Disposition

First and second declarations granted; third declaration refused.

Orders

  • Declaration: It is lawful for the HFEA to decide not to take regulatory action against the clinic for storing embryos without effective consent pending ECHR proceedings and any consequential legislation or expiry of the statutory storage period.
  • Declaration: It was lawful for the DPP to indicate that prosecution would not be in the public interest for storage to date and to set out policy for future prosecutorial discretion.