A man who is terminally ill with motor neurone disease has been given the go-ahead for a legal challenge against the law on assisted dying.

Retired college lecturer Noel Conway took his case to the Court of Appeal after he was refused permission to bring a judicial review over the blanket ban on providing a person with assistance to die.

Mr Conway, 67, from Shrewsbury, was diagnosed with the disease in November 2014 and is not expected to live beyond 12 months.

His lawyers say that when he has less than six months to live and retains the mental capacity to make the decision, "he would wish to be able to enlist assistance to bring about a peaceful and dignified death".

He wants a declaration that the Suicide Act 1961 is incompatible with Article 8, which relates to respect for private and family life, and Article 14, which protects from discrimination.

On Wednesday in London, Lord Justice McFarlane and Lord Justice Beatson granted permission and remitted the case to the High Court to determine.

Before his illness, Mr Conway, who is married, with a son, daughter, stepson and grandchild, was fit and active, enjoying hiking, cycling and travelling.

He now uses a wheelchair and ventilation equipment and was not in court.

His counsel, Richard Gordon QC, said he wished "to die in the country in which he was born and has lived for his whole adult life.

"The choices facing him therefore are stark: to seek to bring about his own death now whilst he is physically able to do but before he is ready; or await death with no control over when and how it comes."

Mr Conway contended that these choices, forced upon him by the provisions of the criminal law, violated his human rights.

The case follows that brought by Tony Nicklinson, who suffered from paralysis after a stroke.

That was ultimately dismissed in 2014 by the Supreme Court, which said it was important that Parliament debated the issues before any decision was made by the courts.

Mr Conway's case is different in that he has a terminal illness and his legal team are setting out strict criteria and clear potential safeguards to protect the vulnerable from any abuse of the system.

His lawyers attacked the High Court's majority decision that it remained "institutionally inappropriate" for a court to make a declaration of incompatibility.

It said that, after the Nicklinson case, both the House of Commons and the House of Lords had debated the issue, with the result that Parliament had decided, at least for the moment, not to provide for legislative exceptions to the 1961 Act.

Later, Mr Conway said: "I am delighted that my case will now proceed to the next stage.

"Clearly the Court of Appeal has agreed that this is an issue deserving full and proper consideration and I look forward to a full hearing at the High Court.

"Having overcome this initial setback in my fight for choice at the end of life, I am more determined than ever to continue.

"I have the support of my loved ones and many thousands of others behind me; people who have donated over £90,000 towards my legal costs and sent heart-warming messages of encouragement to me and my family.

"I have lived my whole life on my own terms, in control of the choices and decisions I make. Why then, when I am facing my final months, should these rights be stripped away from me, leaving me at the mercy of a cruel illness?

"I know I am going to die anyway, but how and when should be up to me.

"To have the option of an assisted death available in this country would provide me and countless others with great reassurance and comfort.

"It would allow me to decide when I am ready to go, rather than be forced into a premature death by travelling to Dignitas at great emotional and financial cost, or to suffer a traumatic, drawn out death at home."

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: "The current law simply does not work for dying people or their families.

"Terminally ill Britons are being forced to suffer against their wishes or take drastic measures at home and abroad in order to wrest back control over their deaths.

"People like Noel deserve choice and control at the end of life but the law denies them these basic rights.

"Noel, supported by Dignity in Dying, wants the courts to examine the evidence in full, taking into account the failure of Parliament to adequately engage with this issue and the progress made overseas in recent years.

"Noel and his family have received overwhelming support so far - the huge sums raised on a Crowdfunder for his legal costs are testament to this.

"Clearly there is great appetite for change; indeed 82% of the public would support a law to allow assisted dying as an option for terminally ill, mentally competent adults.

"We are indebted to Noel and his family for devoting their time and energy to this hugely important case.

"We now call on the courts to proceed as a matter of urgency - not only for Noel's sake but also because this is an issue that simply cannot be ignored any longer."

Yogi Amin, of law firm Irwin Mitchell, added: "The world has changed phenomenally in the past few decades with many medical advances, but the law on assisted dying for those who are terminally ill hasn't changed for more than 50 years.

"We are pleased the Court of Appeal has today agreed that there is merit in hearing Noel's case.

"He is an extremely brave and proud man who is supported by his loving family. He would like the choice to be able to die with dignity."

A spokesman for the Care Not Killing Alliance said: "We are naturally disappointed that this case continues to drag on.

"If successful, it will usurp the democratic will of Parliament.

"Only a year-and-a-half ago, MPs looked very carefully at this complex issue and comprehensively rejected changing the law by 330 votes to 118.

"Changing the law is opposed by every major disability rights organisation and doctors' group, including the BMA, Royal College of GPs and the Association for Palliative Medicine, who have looked at this issue in detail and concluded that there is no safe system of assisted suicide and euthanasia anywhere in the world.

"Laws in Holland and Belgium that were only meant to apply to mentally competent terminally ill adults have been extended to include the elderly, disabled, those with mental health problems and even non-mentally competent children.

"While in Oregon, the model often trumpeted by those wanting to change the law, there are examples of cancer patients being denied lifesaving and life-extending drugs, yet offered the lethal cocktail of barbiturates to kill themselves.

"The current laws on assisted suicide and euthanasia are simple and clear.

"They exist to protect those who are sick, elderly, depressed or disabled from feeling obliged to end their lives.

"It protects those who have no voice against exploitation and coercion. It acts as a powerful deterrent to would-be abusers and does not need changing."