For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THIS JUDGMENT UNTIL
3.00PM ON 5 JUNE 2015.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CIV-2015-485-000235 [2015] NZHC 1239
UNDER
The Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 and
the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
BETWEEN
LECRETIA SEALES Plaintiff
AND
ATTORNEY-GENERAL Defendant
Hearing:
25-27 May 2015
Counsel:
A S Butler with C J Curran, C M Marks, M L Campbell and E J Watt for Plaintiff
Mr M Heron QC, Solicitor-General with P T Rishworth QC, E J Devine and Y Moinfar for Defendant
M S R Palmer QC and J S Hancock for Human Rights Commission V E Casey and M S Smith for Care Alliance
K G Davenport QC with A H Brown and L M K E Almoayed for Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New Zealand (Incorporated)
Judgment:
4 June 2015
JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J
Summary of judgment
[1] Ms Seales is dying from a brain tumour.1 She is 42 years old and may have only a short time to live.2
1 The names of Ms Seales’ principal oncologist, another oncologist who has treated her and her doctor have been suppressed. Affidavit of Ms Seales’ principal oncologist, 2 April 2015 at [7]- [8]; Ms Seales’ principal oncologist has explained Ms Seales has “diffuse astrocytoma ... with elements of an oligodendroglioma. This combination is often abbreviated to ‘oligoastrocytoma’. Both astrocytoma … and oligodendroglioma … grow diffusely and infiltrate the brain”.
2 Second affidavit of Ms Seales’ principal oncologist, 22 May 2015 at [6]; Ms Seales can now
SEALES v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 1239 [4 June 2015]
[2] Ms Seales wants to have the option of determining when she dies. To do this, Ms Seales would like her doctor to be able to either administer a fatal drug to Ms Seales, or provide Ms Seales with a fatal drug to enable Ms Seales to end her life by herself.
[3] Ms Seales’ doctor is willing to take either of these steps, but will not do so unless she can be assured she would be acting lawfully if she acceded to either of Ms Seales’ requests.
[4] Ms Seales has sought two declarations concerning the meaning of two provisions of the Crimes Act 1961 (the Crimes Act) to determine whether or not Ms Seales’ doctor can lawfully accede to either of Ms Seales’ requests.
[5] First, Ms Seales has sought a declaration that her doctor would not commit either murder or manslaughter under s 160(2)(a) and (3) of the Crimes Act if she “administered aid in dying” to Ms Seales.3 “Administered aid in dying” is defined in the statement of claim to mean:4
… the administration by a medical practitioner, or a person acting under the general supervision of a medical practitioner in the context of a patient/physician relationship, of medication or other treatment that brings about the death of a patient who:
(1) being competent to do so, clearly consents to the administration of…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Seales v Attorney-General
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Seales v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1239
Case
[2015] NZHC 1239
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Lecretia Seales, a woman suffering from an aggressive brain tumour, sought a declaration that her doctor could lawfully assist her to end her life. The High Court of New Zealand was asked to interpret two provisions of the Crimes Act 1961, which criminalise the act of administering aid in dying and facilitating aid in dying, in light of two rights guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Court found that the doctor would be committing an offence if she acceded to Ms Seales' request to administer a fatal drug to her, or provide her with a fatal drug to enable her to end her own life. The Court also concluded that the right not to be deprived of life and the right not to be subjected to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment are not engaged in this case. Consequently, the Court could not issue the declarations sought by Ms Seales.