The family of a man unlawfully allowed to die by doctors without the court’s involvement have won their appeal and asked a coroner to investigate his death.
Robert Barnor suffered a severe stroke in April 2025, followed by further strokes leading to extensive and irreversible brain damage. He never recovered consciousness. Epsom and St Helier Hospitals NHS Trust disagreed that treatment should continue and argued it was in his best interests to die.
On 11 February 2026 it made a “clinical decision” to stop dialysis saying there was “no best interests decision” for the Court of Protection to make. However, professional guidance for doctors states: “Where there is disagreement about whether a course of action is in the best interests of the patient, or the decision is ‘finely balanced’ … the Court of Protection remains the ultimate decision-maker, and can and should be asked to decide.”
On 17 February the Vice-President of the Court of Protection ruled that it had no power to interfere with that clinical decision. The Court of Appeal heard the family’s appeal on 23 February, and on 27 February Mr Barnor died.
Now, judges have unanimously allowed the appeal, ruling that it was for the court, not the clinicians, to decide whether it was in the patient’s best interests for treatment to continue. Lord Justice Baker made clear: “There is no carve out for ‘clinical decisions’”.
Mr Barnor’s daughter, Lesley Barnor Townsend, said: “It was a profound shock for the family to see the NHS’s so-called end-of-life care in action … the family’s solicitors have written to the South London Coroner that the circumstances of Mr Barnor’s death should now be fully investigated.”
The family are being supported by the Christian Legal Centre. The CLC’s Andrea Williams said: “A thorough public inquiry into the medical and legal aspects of end-of-life care in this country is long overdue. The system must be urgently reformed to introduce robust protections for the sanctity of life.”
On his blog “A Lawyer Writes”, legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said a leading lawyer in the field of health and social care had told him “the ruling would cause widespread difficulties [when making decisions about incapacitated adults] and should now be considered by the Supreme Court with the benefit of more time and full legal argument”.
