| Stransham-Ford v Minister of Justice | |
|---|---|
| Court | North Gauteng High Court |
| Full case name | Robert James Stransham-Ford v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others |
| Decided | 30 April 2015 (order) 4 May 2015 (reasons) |
| Citation | [2015] ZAGPPHC 230 |
| Transcript | Judgment on SAFLII |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | Urgent application to the High Court |
| Subsequent actions | Later appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), which set aside the High Court order after Stransham-Ford's death |
| Related action | South African Law Commission Report on Euthanasia (1998) |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Hans J. Fabricius |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Fabricius J |
| Keywords | |
Stransham-Ford v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (case no. 27401/15) was a 2015 judgment of the North Gauteng High Court in South Africa. It was the first South African case to address the constitutionality of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. [1] [2] [3]
Robert James Stransham-Ford, a 65-year-old advocate, was diagnosed with terminal stage 4 cancer and given only weeks to live. He applied to the High Court in Pretoria for an order permitting a medical doctor to assist him in ending his life without facing criminal or professional liability. He argued that his suffering, which included severe pain, loss of mobility, and loss of dignity, infringed his constitutional rights. [3]
The applicant relied on provisions of the South African Constitution, including: [4]
He argued that the common law prohibition on assisted suicide unjustifiably limited these rights. His counsel compared assisted suicide to the lawful withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment and cited international precedents such as Carter v Canada (2015). [5]
The state opposed the application, arguing that assisted suicide remained unlawful under South African law and that recognising such a right raised ethical, social, and medical concerns. [2] [5]
On 30 April 2015, Justice Hans Fabricius ruled in favour of Stransham-Ford, declaring that: [4]
Stransham-Ford died on the day of the order, before the judgment was formally delivered. [6] [7]
In 2016, the Supreme Court of Appeal overruled the High Court's decision, holding that the matter had become moot because the applicant had died before the judgment was delivered. The court ruled that the case was not an appropriate vehicle for developing the common law on murder and culpable homicide, and it upheld the appeal by the Minister of Justice. As a result, the High Court's order did not stand, and the case did not establish a legal precedent for the authorisation of assisted dying in South Africa. [7]
The judgment was widely regarded as a landmark in South African law. It raised questions about whether the legislature should regulate assisted dying, building on earlier recommendations by the South African Law Commission's 1998 report on euthanasia. [8] [9]
While the order applied to a specific case and did not constitute a general legalisation of assisted suicide, it drew attention to the constitutional balance between the right to life and the right to dignity. The decision has been noted in comparison with similar cases in Canada, Europe, and the United States. [10] [11]