HM and THE CO-ORDINATING PRACTITIONER FOR HM

In the case before the court, HM, an individual seeking access to voluntary assisted dying, challenged the decision of the Coordinating Practitioner, who had determined that HM was not eligible to access voluntary assisted dying under the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 (Vic). The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with interpreting the statutory provisions regarding the meaning of 'ordinarily resident' and determining whether HM was eligible to access voluntary assisted dying.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term 'ordinarily resident' within the context of the Act. Specifically, the court had to ascertain whether HM had been 'ordinarily resident' in Victoria for a period of at least 12 months at the time of making the first request, as required by the legislation. The court also considered whether there were any circumstances that could justify a departure from the strict interpretation of the statutory requirement.

The court undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory language and relevant legislative history, concluding that the term 'ordinarily resident' was intended to ensure a genuine connection between the individual and the state. The court found that HM had not been 'ordinarily resident' in Victoria for the requisite period. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the Coordinating Practitioner, finding that HM was not eligible to access voluntary assisted dying under the Act. The court's reasoning was grounded in the plain language of the statute and the absence of any evidence to suggest that HM had maintained a genuine connection to Victoria for the required duration.

The court's decision was final, with no further orders made. The eligibility criteria for voluntary assisted dying under the Act were upheld, and HM's application for review was dismissed.