The case of Nicklinson is about the blanket prohibition on assisted suicide in English law, in particular as it applies to severely disabled people who wish to end their life but are incapable of doing so without assistance. By a majority of 7-2, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the current law based on the Human Rights Act 1998. One of the matters of disagreement between the judges concerns the relative roles of Parliament and the courts in determining the proportionality (and thus the justifiability) of limitations of Convention rights. While some adopted a highly deferential position, in which the courts should only declare primary legislation incompatible with Convention rights if Parliament refuses to consider the question of proportionality at all (e.g. Lord Sumption at para. 233), and others adopted a highly non-deferential position, in which the courts should form an independent judgement regardless of the views of Parliament (e.g. Lord Kerr at para. 345), Lord Mance sought to identify a middle ground. According to him, the application of proportionality-analysis by the courts should be sensitive to questions of institutional competence and is thus contextually variable. In adopting this position he found work published by Professor Rivers in 2006 'instructive' (para. 170).