Supporters of a proposed assisted dying law in England and Wales have suggested removing the requirement for High Court judges to approve each case, replacing them with an expert panel to assess applications.
Currently, the bill mandates that a High Court judge ensures individuals seeking assisted dying are eligible and acting voluntarily. However, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who is leading the bill, has proposed that a panel of experts – including psychiatrists and social workers – oversee applications instead. The decision of this panel could still be reviewed by the High Court if necessary.
The change comes amid concerns that the High Court lacks the capacity to handle every case. Retired High Court judge Sir Nicholas Mostyn told MPs it would be “impossible” for the court to take on this responsibility, suggesting that a dedicated panel would be more practical.
Leadbeater insists that the amendment would make the process “even more robust,” arguing that it enhances, rather than removes, judicial scrutiny. The proposed panel would be appointed by a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission, which would be led by a senior judge and tasked with overseeing all cases, publishing an annual report on approved and rejected applications.
However, critics argue that the change weakens the bill’s safeguards. Conservative MP Danny Kruger welcomed greater expert involvement but questioned whether a panel could offer the same impartiality as a judge. Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney also expressed concern, noting that MPs initially backed the bill in November with the understanding that High Court judges would be involved.
More than 300 amendments to the bill have been tabled, including one from Liberal Democrat MP Tom Gordon seeking to extend eligibility to those with neurodegenerative illnesses who have up to 12 months to live, rather than the current six-month requirement. Leadbeater does not support this expansion.
MPs initially approved the assisted dying bill by a majority of 55 in November. It will now undergo further scrutiny in both the House of Commons and the Lords before it can become law. Tamasin Perkins, Partner, Charles Russell Speechlys, said:
“Reported plans to remove the need for a High Court judge to sign off applications in such an emotionally charged bill is a cause for concern. When MPs voted on the Bill the involvement of the High Court was seen as an important safeguard and reassurance; removing it is a worrying U-turn.
The Court system in England and Wales is tested and has been proven to be able to handle difficult decisions, whereas the new tribunal is untested and uncertain, and we still do not know exactly what is being proposed.
This issue reflects a wider concern around using the Private Members’ Bill process to pass such an important piece of legislation. There are understandably strong feelings about these issues, but legal decisions about life or death should not be rushed through.”
