Human Rights Act 1998 — Schedule 1, Part I  |  Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 — Schedule 1 (Identical Wording)

"(1) Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law."

(2) Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Multiple sworn affidavits — General Form of Affidavit N285 — were filed as new crime reports alleging Misconduct in Public Office against Kim Leadbeater MP in the County of West Yorkshire, within the jurisdiction of West Yorkshire Police. The allegation basis: that Kim Leadbeater MP, as a public officer, knowingly advanced legislation — the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill — in contravention of Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, a law in force, which if enacted would immediately be eligible for a judge to declare incompatibility.

A further affidavit adds two additional sworn points: (8) that the government's compatibility declarations are fraudulent, using the Switzerland case in a manner not applicable to what governments may do under Article 2 of the ECHR; and (9) that the meaning of "life", "living" and "alive" in Samuel Johnson's and Webster's dictionaries means the preservation and maintenance of the living state of being alive — whether or not happy or sad, in contentment or suffering — making assisted dying legislatively and linguistically irreconcilable with the word "life" as it exists in law.

PROTECT v.a. — "To defend; to cover from evil; to shield." Samuel Johnson's Dictionary (1773)
PROTECT'ED participle passive — "Covered or defended from injury; preserved in safety." Webster's Dictionary 1828

LIFE n.s. — "1. Union and co-operation of soul with body; vitality; animation, opposed to an inanimate state. 3. Enjoyment, or possession of existence, as opposed to death. 6. Condition; manner of living with respect to happiness and misery. 7. Continuance of our present state." Samuel Johnson's Dictionary (1773)

LIFE noun — "In a general sense, that state of animals and plants, or of an organized being, in which its natural functions and motions are performed, or in which its organs are capable of performing their functions." Webster's American Dictionary 1828

Both authorities define life by its existence and continuance — including in states of misery and suffering. Definition 6 (Johnson) explicitly includes conditions of unhappiness and misery. The conclusion is airtight: "ALL MEANINGS ARE TO PRESERVE AND KEEP ALIVE EVEN IN STATE OF MISERY." There is no interpretation under which the law may take life to protect or preserve it. "LIFE" cannot be taken by law other than by criminal proceedings. Not civil.

Sworn affidavits state directly: "The declarations of compatibility with convention rights, issued by Government for the assisted dying bills are fraudulent because they draw attention from the article 2 and its meaning & use a Switzerland case example concerning individual's, which is not applicable to what government can or cannot do by article 2 of ECHR."

The case in question is Haas v. Switzerland (2011), ECHR Application No. 31322/07. The applicant wished to end his life and argued that Switzerland's requirement for a medical prescription violated his Article 8 rights (right to private life and self-determination). The Grand Chamber ruled it did not violate Article 8 — an individual's personal rights case, not an Article 2 case.

The Section 19(1)(a) compatibility statement relied heavily on this Article 8 reasoning. What it did not address — and what the affidavits identify as the fraudulent evasion — is that Haas concerns what an individual may seek for themselves; it says nothing about whether a government may enact civil law to intentionally take life. Article 2 governs what the state may do. It was not examined in Haas. The Jersey filing goes further: making such a statement, knowing it to be incorrect, constitutes Misconduct in Public Office and Perjury of Oath to act according to law.

On 4 February 2026, a formal petition and crime report was submitted to the States Greffe of Jersey (État d'Jèrri), Jersey Police, the Jersey Police Authority, and the Jersey Law Officers, alleging Fraud, Misconduct in Public Office, Perjury, and Treason in connection with Jersey's assisted dying Bill and its compatibility declaration. The Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000, Schedule 1, Article 2 carries the identical wording to the UK Human Rights Act 1998. The Jersey compatibility statement is therefore subject to the same fatal flaw.

The Jersey filing notes that under Section 6 of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000, the Attorney General of Jersey must be notified when any court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility — and must be joined as a party. It further invokes the 1368 Observation of Due Process of Law, the 1688 Bill of Rights (which applies to all subjects of the Crown, including those in Jersey), and confirms that Jersey holds a Royal Mace presented by King Charles II on 28 November 1663 — meaning the King's judicial presence is constitutionally present in the Jersey State. The petition was not required to be endorsed by a Deputy or Conétable; it was lawfully submitted directly by a King's subject.

Multiple petitions challenging the legality of the Assisted Dying Bills were submitted to parliamentary petition processes — at Westminster, the Senedd, and the Jersey States — and rejected. The Jersey filing documents that a near-identical petition allowed in Westminster policy was rejected by the Senedd despite being "proved permissible." The e-petitions process was described as preventing lawful public scrutiny of a judicial matter.

The constitutional authority for public petitions on judicial matters is established: the 1832 Public Petition Committee Report (George Strickland MP) and the 1944 report (John Tinker) both confirm that petitions on "judicial matters" do not go to a petition committee and do not require a Clerk's advice or a member's endorsement. The petitioner submits directly to the House. Clerks are advisors only — the signing member has the say. Blocking a lawful judicial petition is itself a breach of parliamentary privilege and constitutional right under the 1661 Tumultuous Petitioning Act and the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Under Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, any higher court may make a declaration of incompatibility with a Convention right. Under Section 5, the Crown is entitled to notice and may intervene. This power exists at any stage of proceedings — before, during, or after the Bill is passed. It is not limited to a specific moment. A judge can declare this law incompatible the moment it receives Royal Assent. A judge can do so in criminal or civil proceedings. The Attorney General of Jersey must be present when such a declaration is considered in Jersey.

Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Acts of Public Authorities) exempts the act of making legislation from being "an act of a public authority" — but this does not remove the Article 2 incompatibility. Incompatibility remains regardless, and judges retain the duty to return such legislation.

The Jersey filing states this plainly: "EVEN WHEN PASSED, A JUDGE CAN RETURN IT AS INCOMPATIBLE IN ANY CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PROCEEDINGS." This is not a campaigning argument. It is a reading of the procedural rules. Parliament knows this. The government knows this. The question that demands an answer is why this was not disclosed openly to the 330 MPs who voted for the Bill.

Public figures including Dame Esther Rantzen have appeared extensively on television and social media advocating for assisted dying legislation based on personal suffering and compassion — without disclosing the current legal incompatibility with Article 2. A Dame of the Realm who uses public platforms to advocate for legislation without acknowledging its known constitutional incompatibility is, at minimum, misleading the public on a matter of current law.

The argument from compassion and emotion does not override statutory law. The incompatibility is not a matter of opinion. It is a straightforward reading of the words of Article 2(1). The question must be asked directly: has the logic and reason of Parliament been compromised? Has the assisted diminishing of reason, facts, and legal truth become the very thing we are witnessing — MPs voting for law known to be immediately returnable by a judge? "Lead us not into temptation of these bills, but deliver us from their evils."

During and following the pandemic, MPs received significantly increased reports of suicidal ideation from constituents as a direct consequence of state-imposed measures. At a time of historically low public trust in government — when citizens report feeling ignored, economically pressured, and without hope — the introduction of a legal civil pathway to death raises an unresolved safeguarding crisis. The Bill's six-month prognosis threshold carries an acknowledged clinical error margin of up to 40% among oncology and neurodegenerative specialists.

This Bill is opening up the way to a nation where people could be encouraged or persuaded to just give up hope — especially when many already feel the government is corrupt and under corporate capture. Introducing a legal pathway to death without first resolving the Article 2 incompatibility — and without honest public disclosure of that incompatibility — is not compassion. It is constitutional and moral recklessness.

MPs voted 330 to 275 in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Sponsor: Kim Leadbeater MP (Labour, Spen Valley). Breakdown of the 330 Ayes: majority of Labour MPs; 56 Liberal Democrats; all four Green MPs; 20 Conservative MPs; John McDonnell (Independent).

The Bill passed its final Commons reading in June 2025 but did not complete the parliamentary session and did not receive Royal Assent. The Article 2 incompatibility remains live and unresolved. Any reintroduction faces the same constitutional obstacle — 330 MPs voted for legislation that a judge may return as incompatible the moment it passes.