Petition of Gordon Ross (AP) for Judicial Review [2015] ScotCS CSOH_123 (08 September 2015)

Petition of Gordon Ross (AP) for Judicial Review [2015] ScotCS CSOH_123 (08 September 2015)

The Lord Advocate's prosecution policy for homicide in cases of assisted suicide is sufficiently accessible, foreseeable, and not arbitrary. There is no divergence between the law and its application, and the policy is publicly available and clear. The requirements of legality under Article 8(2) ECHR are satisfied. The respondent is not required to promulgate a more specific policy.

Citation
[2015] ScotCS CSOH_123
Parties
Petitioner: Gordon Ross; Respondent: Lord Advocate
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
08 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / First Hearing, Opinion Issued
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Assisted Suicide, Prosecution Policy, Article 8 ECHR, Legality of Interference, Foreseeability and Accessibility of Law
Criminal Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Assisted Suicide Prosecution Policy Article 8 ECHR Legality of Interference Foreseeability and Accessibility of Law

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Ross

Petitioner

Lord Advocate

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / First Hearing, Opinion Issued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Lord Advocate's failure to promulgate a specific prosecution policy for assisted suicide breaches Article 8 ECHR rights to private life by lacking foreseeability and accessibility.
  2. 2 Whether the existing prosecution policy is 'in accordance with the law' under Article 8(2) ECHR.

Ratio Decidendi

The Lord Advocate's prosecution policy for homicide in cases of assisted suicide is sufficiently accessible, foreseeable, and not arbitrary. There is no divergence between the law and its application, and the policy is publicly available and clear. The requirements of legality under Article 8(2) ECHR are satisfied. The respondent is not required to promulgate a more specific policy.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Sustained the respondent’s plea to relevancy and dismissed the petition.
  • Reserved all questions of expenses.