House of Lords rejects Natallie Evans’ petition to appeal

No Header

Natallie Evans petition for permission to appeal her case to the House of Lords has been refused.

The decision to refuse permission was made by three Law Lords on 18th November 2004 (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood) who had considered Natallie's written petition which had been filed on 9th September.

Their Lordships refused permission on the grounds that "the petition did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the House at this time, bearing in mind that the cause has already been the subject of judicial determination." This refers to the previous decisions in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Natallie's solicitor, Muiris Lyons Partner at Alexander Harris, said: "Clearly, Natallie is very disappointed at the decision of the House of Lords not to hear her appeal. She was hopeful that the House of Lords would recognise the importance of the case, not just to her but to others, and hear the appeal. We will now consider Natallie's position with a view to deciding whether she wishes to consider taking her case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg."

Background

Natallie Evans was diagnosed with a pre-cancerous condition of her ovaries. She had to undergo surgery to have them removed.
Before she did so, Natallie attended for IVF treatment with her then fiancé, Howard. They were counselled and advised together and both consented to the creation, storage and use of the embryos.
Six embryos were created and are in storage.
Howard knew this was Natallie's last chance. At the clinic, they specifically discussed what would happen if they split up. Howard reassured Natallie that this would not happen and that she should proceed. As a result she agreed to have her eggs fertilised with his sperm, rather than investigating other options such as donor sperm or egg freezing.
Shortly after, Howard left Natallie. He also withdrew his consent to the embryos remaining in storage. The clinic indicated they had no choice other than to remove the embryos from storage and allow them to perish. Attempts at negotiating a compromise failed.
Natallie had to go to the High Court in an attempt to preserve her only chance of having a natural child of her own. She lost at trial. Mr Justice Wall ruled that the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 were clear. Both parties must consent to the embryos being stored or used. Howard no longer consented. He was entitled to withdraw his consent.
Natallie was in the Court of Appeal in March 2003 for the hearing of her appeal against Mr Justice Wall's decision. She applied for permission to appeal on 7 grounds. She was granted permission on 6. Her argument that the embryos themselves had a "qualified" right to life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998) was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Natallie's legal arguments in June 2004.
Heartbroken by the Court of Appeal's decision Natallie lodged a petition for permission to appeal with the House of Lords in September 2004. The petition outlined the legal arguments in support of Natallie's case.

Notes to Editors:

For further information please contact our media management department at Alexander Harris solicitors on 08700 77 88 77.

Back

Related news stories

If you believe that you might have a legal claim relating to this story, please complete the online enquiry form or call 0870 024 0558. Your enquiry will be forwarded to a solicitor who specialises in this area.

If you have any comments in relation to this story, please use the online discussion forum.

This news section contains stories of interest to our clients from publicly available news sources. Where we are representing the clients referred to in the news material we will say so. Where we do not represent individuals or bodies mentioned or quoted, the inclusion of the news story in our news section is not intended nor should it be taken to imply that we act for the individual or body concerned.