© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
On Monday, a woman was sentenced to prison for 28 months by a UK court for pleading guilty to the act of aborting her pregnancy beyond the legally permissible time limit of ten weeks, which is an offence under the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861.
Owing to her pregnancy occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic, the woman said she was unable to get an ultrasound and was not aware of how advanced her pregnancy was, a UK-based newspaper, The Times, has reported.
What is the case?
Carla Foster, a 44-year-old mother of three, has admitted to receiving her abortion pills through the “pills by post” scheme introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic. Although the scheme was introduced as a temporary two-year-long measure on August 29, 2020, by the government, it was extended indefinitely in March last year after UK MPs voted to “compel ministers to make it permanent” instead of scrapping it altogether, The Guardian said.
According to the scheme, women could be supplied drugs after a remote consultation for pregnancies up to 10 weeks. The decision was aimed at benefiting women by giving them two tablets to end their pregnancy in the privacy of their own homes instead of a clinic or hospital.
Although the woman in the present case had legally procured the abortion pills, she ended up exceeding the 10-week limit to induce abortions. In one of the previous hearings in this case, the information was revealed after she admitted to taking the medicines after the time limit.
The incident first came to light on May 11, 2020, when an emergency call was made saying she was in labour. However, the baby was confirmed dead about 45 minutes later, the BBC said. Following this, a post-mortem examination indicated that the baby’s cause of death was abortion drugs, adding that the foetus was 32–34 weeks old.
On June 12, the woman appeared before a Crown Court for her sentencing, where she could face a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
What is a crown court?
Native to England and Wales, a Crown Court deals with the most serious criminal offences. Currently, the United Kingdom has about 70 such courts. It usually has a jury that decides if someone is guilty or not, along with a judge who decides the punishment or sentence for a particular crime.
Criminal cases, including offences like murder, rape, and robbery, often come before a Crown Court. However, it also deals with appeals against a magistrates’ court conviction or “sentence cases passed from a magistrates’ court”.
A range of sentences can be given by Crown Courts, such as community, prison, or life sentences. However, one can appeal against a sentence or conviction decided by a Crown Court. Moreover, anyone can ask for a sentence to be reviewed without being involved in the case.
What exactly is the offence the woman is being sentenced for?
In March, the woman pleaded guilty to the offence of obtaining drugs to cause an abortion, which is still an offence under the UK’s Offences Against the Person Act of 1861.
Section 58 of the 1861 Act, says that if “Every Woman, being with Child,” with an intent to “procure her own miscarriage,” unlawfully administers to herself any poison or other noxious thing, or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means with a similar intent, she will be guilty of a felony and, after conviction, will be liable to be kept in “Penal Servitude for Life or for any Term not less than Three Years, — or to be imprisoned for any Term not exceeding Two Years, with or without Hard Labour, and with or without Solitary Confinement.” This section also penalises miscarriages caused by anyone other than the pregnant woman through the defined means.
A similar provision of the 1861 Act is Section 59, which deems the act of anyone procuring drugs, instruments, poison, or any other noxious thing, knowing that it is intended to be unlawfully used or is being employed to intentionally induce a woman’s miscarriage, guilty of “misdemeanour” and, upon being held guilty, makes one liable to three years penal servitude or two years imprisonment, with or without hard labour, at the court’s discretion.
Essentially, this means that abortions in all of Great Britain are not entirely decriminalised. However, in 1965, a compromise was struck where a woman could get an abortion after obtaining the signatures of two doctors.
As of date, abortions in England, Scotland, and Wales are generally legal up to 24 weeks but must be carried out in a hospital or clinic anytime after 10 weeks, The Guardian has clarified. On the other hand, in North Ireland, a law was passed in 2019 by the UK government decriminalising abortions.
What happened in today’s hearing?
In today’s hearing before the Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court, the prosecution contended that the woman knew she had exceeded the time limit and knowingly gave false information during her remote consultation.
Knowing that she had been pregnant for around three months, the prosecution lawyer told the court that the police had collected evidence of the woman’s web search history and messages, which indicated “careful planning” around inducing a miscarriage and hiding a pregnancy.
Additionally, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which provided her with the abortion pills, informed her that the drugs were being given to her based on the belief that she had provided accurate information about her pregnancy being seven weeks old. According to the BBC, the court was told she had searched “how to hide a pregnancy bump”, “how to have an abortion without going to the doctor” and “how to lose a baby at six months”.
However, the woman maintained that she “effectively gave the prosecution the case,” according to Hannah Al-Othman of the Times. Adding that she spoke to the police, without which the case would not have reached the court, she said she will live with her decision to end her pregnancy this way for the rest of her life. The defence counsel on her behalf argued that the lockdown had reduced in-person appointments, and thus, she had to search for information online.
What did the court say?
Justice Edward Pepperall said that he had “unusually” received a letter from different medical bodies and presidents of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives, urging for a non-custodial sentence in the case.
However, the court deemed the letter “inappropriate,” reasoning that only the parliament can change the law, and those objecting to it must keep their demands before the parliament. The court clarified that judges can only apply the law as it stands. Deeming this to be a “tragic case”, the court said it accepted that the woman was in emotional turmoil. The court also said that if she had pleaded guilty earlier, it could have considered suspending her jail sentence.
However, the court observed that the woman’s level of culpability was high on account of her deliberately aborting beyond the legal limit and lying to procure the pills. Due to this, the court sentenced her to over two years in jail.
