R v Davidson

Last updated

R v Davidson
Supreme Court of Victoria.jpg
Court Supreme Court of Victoria
Decided26 May 1969
Citation(s) [1969] VicRp 85, [1969]  VR  667
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Menhennitt J
Case opinions
For an abortion to be not unlawful, the person performing the abortion must have an honest and reasonable belief that the act was:
  1. necessary to protect the woman from serious danger to her life or physical or mental health; and
  2. in the circumstances not out of proportion to the danger to be averted.

R v Davidson, also known (particularly among medical practitioners) as the Menhennitt ruling, [1] was a significant ruling delivered in the Supreme Court of Victoria on 26 May 1969. It concerned the legality of abortion in the Australian state of Victoria. The ruling was not the end of the case, but rather answered certain questions of law about the admissibility of evidence, so as to allow the trial to proceed.

Contents

In the ruling, Justice Menhennitt ruled that abortion might be lawful if necessary to protect the physical or mental health of the woman, provided that the danger involved in the abortion did not outweigh the danger which the abortion was designed to prevent. It was the first ruling on the legality of abortion in any part of Australia. The principles put forward by Justice Menhennitt have since been drawn upon in other parts of the country.

Background to the ruling

Charles Davidson, a medical doctor, was charged with four counts of unlawfully using an instrument to procure the miscarriage of a woman, and one count of conspiring to do the same, offences prohibited in the Victorian Crimes Act 1958. When Justice Menhennitt gave this ruling, the trial had been going for eight days. The prosecution was about to call expert medical testimony, and Menhennitt anticipated that the admissibility of that evidence might be challenged, so he decided to rule on certain questions of law in advance.

The relevant section of the Crimes Act, section 65, stated that:

Whosoever... with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman whether she is or is not with child unlawfully administers to her or causes to be taken by her any poison or other noxious thing, or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means with the like intent, shall be guilty of a felony, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than fifteen years.

As of March 2006, the only subsequent change to this law is in the classification of the crime, from felony to indictable offence. The remainder of the wording remains the same. Menhennitt discussed the background of the section, saying that it was drawn from an 1861 English law, the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which in turn derived from English laws from 1837, 1828 and 1803.

Arguments

The main issue to be considered was what the word "unlawfully" meant in this context. Justice Menhennitt noted that the inclusion of the word implied that some abortions might be lawful. The word "unlawfully" had also appeared in the earlier English legislation from which the Victorian law had derived, and the same word was also used in earlier common law indictments. The word was not defined in any of those statutes, although in the United Kingdom the Abortion Act 1967 had been passed in the meantime, which provided a definition of when abortions were lawful. That legislation had no equivalent in Victoria however, and "unlawfully" remained undefined.

English precedent

The only case that had specifically considered what "unlawfully" meant in the context of abortion was a 1938 English case heard in the Courts of Assize, Rex v Bourne . In that case, Dr Bourne was charged with the crime of abortion under section 58 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 (the same section on which the Victorian law drew). During his summing up, the trial judge instructed the jury that "no person ought to be convicted [of the crime of abortion] unless the jury are satisfied the act was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother." [2] : p 617  The trial judge said that first this was the appropriate definition of abortion at common law, and secondly that although particular wording did not appear in the definition of the crime of abortion, it did appear in the definition of the crime of child destruction (which applies when a person kills a child during childbirth), and that the word "unlawfully" in the definition of abortion implied that the wording should also apply to abortion.

The trial judge continued, saying:

I think those words ought to be construed in a reasonable sense, and, if the doctor is of opinion, on reasonable grounds and with adequate knowledge, that the probable consequence of the continuance of the pregnancy will be to make the woman a physical or mental wreck, the jury are quite entitled to take the view that the doctor who, under those circumstances and in that honest belief, operates, is operating for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother. [2] : p 619 

Justice Menhennitt described why the proviso from the definition of child destruction in the English legislation should also apply to the definition of abortion, by pointing out that under another provision of the same law, abortion was an alternative charge to child destruction and vice versa (that is, the jury could choose to substitute one charge for the other). As such, there was a strong argument to say that the same proviso should apply to both.

However, as Justice Menhennitt pointed out, the Victorian definition of child destruction (in section 10 of the Crimes Act) does not include the proviso in the English legislation; instead, it simply says "unlawfully". As such, that argument would not apply in Victoria, and "what is lawful and what is unlawful must be determined by other legal principles." [1] : p 670 

Necessity

Justice Menhennitt then considered a discussion of R v Bourne by Glanville Williams, in his book The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law, in which Williams said:

The judge's direction to the jury, which resulted in Mr. Bourne's acquittal, is a striking vindication of the legal view that the defence of necessity applies not only to common law but even to statutory crimes. It is true that the direction proceeded in some slight degree on the analogy of the child destruction statute, which contains an express exemption for the preservation of the life of the mother; but the exception in the one statute was not in itself a ground for reading a similar exception into the other. [3]

On this basis, although there were differences in the Victorian legislation, the definition in R v Bourne of "unlawfully" in the context of abortion could indeed be useful in Victoria, if recognised as an expression of the common law defence of necessity.

Justice Menhennitt discussed various definitions of necessity, noting that the concepts of necessity and proportion are usually present. He also quoted a test for necessity laid down by a previous decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in R v MacKay , a case about the killing of an escaping prisoner:

...the test laid down by the law today for determining whether the homicide is justifiable or not is a twofold test which may be stated in this form: (1) Did the accused honestly believe on reasonable grounds that it was necessary to do what he did in order to prevent the completion of the felony or the escape of the felon? and (2) Would a reasonable man in his position have considered that what he did was not out of proportion to the mischief to be prevented? [4]

In the context of abortion under Victorian law, this principle of necessity would mean that anyone performing a termination would have to have an honest and reasonable belief that conducting the termination was necessary to prevent some serious harm from occurring to the woman. Thus the test would be a subjective one, with the requirement that the beliefs be held reasonably.

Judgment

Justice Menhennitt decided in favour of using the principle of necessity to give substance to "unlawfulness" in this context. He expressed a test for deciding whether a termination would be unlawful or not in this way:

For the use of an instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage to be lawful the accused must have honestly believed on reasonable grounds that the act done by him was (a) necessary to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or her physical or mental health (not being merely the normal dangers of pregnancy and childbirth) which the continuance of the pregnancy would entail; and (b) in the circumstances not out of proportion to the danger to be averted. [1] : p 672 

Consequences

The trial proceeded, and Davidson was found not guilty by the jury on all five charges, on 3 June 1969.

The primary significance of the decision was that it referred to both physical and mental health of the mother as a factor in a lawful abortion.

The principles in the ruling were largely adopted in the state of New South Wales by the District Court of New South Wales in 1971 in the case of R v Wald , [5] which also involved the prosecution of a doctor for performing a termination. That case expanded the definition slightly, by pointing out that "it would be for the jury to decide whether there existed in the case of each woman any economic, social or medical ground or reason which in their view could constitute reasonable grounds upon which an accused could honestly and reasonably believe there would result a serious danger to her physical or mental health". [5] In the state of Queensland, the principles in the Menhennitt ruling were cited in the 1986 case of R v Bayliss & Cullen . [6] In the other states, and in the Northern Territory (but not the Australian Capital Territory), legislation has been adopted to define which abortions are legal and which are not.

In 1974, the Whitlam government provided that Medibank (now called Medicare) benefits could be paid to women who underwent a termination procedure. In 1979, however, there was a motion in the Australian House of Representatives from Stephen Lusher to end medical benefits for terminations, and the debate spilled over to the legality of abortion. Although the decisions in Davidson and Wald were fiercely criticised by some members of parliament, who insisted that abortion was still illegal, others defended the validity of the decisions. Former Prime Minister Billy McMahon said "it has been stated rather foolishly, by a member not very closely attuned to the law – that there has been no appeals. But there could have been an appeal. There was no restriction in either State, Liberal Country Party or Labor government as to appeal." [7]

Despite some disquiet from the anti-abortion lobby, no appeals have been lodged against the Menhennitt ruling or the other decisions, and in most states there have been no successful prosecutions for consensual abortion since those decisions. Anti-abortion writers contend that most abortions remain illegal, and that the courts and the prosecutors are lax in protecting the rights of unborn children. [8] Other commentators argue that calling abortion technically illegal is incorrect, or otherwise pointless, since that is "a meaningless category in law." [7]

In 2008, after a conscience vote in the Victorian parliament, legislation reforming abortion laws was passed. The new law legalizes abortion on request up to 24 weeks pregnancy; after that time, two doctors must certify that they "reasonably believe that the abortion is appropriate in all the circumstances", with those circumstances encompassing "all relevant medical circumstances; and the woman's current and future physical, psychological and social circumstances." [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion in the United Kingdom</span> Overview of the legality and prevalence of abortions in the United Kingdom

Abortion in the United Kingdom is de facto available under the terms of the Abortion Act 1967 in Great Britain and the Abortion (No.2) Regulations 2020 in Northern Ireland. The procurement of an abortion remains a criminal offence in Great Britain under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, although the Abortion Act provides a legal defence for both the pregnant woman and her doctor in certain cases. Although a number of abortions did take place before the 1967 Act, there have been around 10 million abortions in the United Kingdom. Around 200,000 abortions are carried out in England and Wales each year and just under 14,000 in Scotland; the most common reason cited under the ICD-10 classification system for around 98% of all abortions is "risk to woman's mental health."

Abortion in Ireland is regulated by the Health Act 2018. Abortion is permitted in Ireland during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, and later in cases where the pregnant woman's life or health is at risk, or in the cases of a fatal foetal abnormality. Abortion services commenced on 1 January 2019, following its legalisation by the aforementioned Act, which became law on 20 December 2018. Previously, the 8th Constitutional Amendment had given the life of the unborn foetus the same value as that of its mother, but the 36th constitutional amendment, approved by referendum in May 2018, replaced this with a clause permitting the Oireachtas (parliament) to legislate for the termination of pregnancies.

The defence of property is a common method of justification used by defendants who argue that they should not be held liable for any loss and injury that they have caused because they were acting to protect their property.

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – that is, a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion law</span> Laws that allow, prohibit, or regulate abortion

Abortion laws vary widely among countries and territories, and have changed over time. Such laws range from abortion being freely available on request, to regulation or restrictions of various kinds, to outright prohibition in all circumstances. Many countries and territories that allow abortion have gestational limits for the procedure depending on the reason; with the majority being up to 12 weeks for abortion on request, up to 24 weeks for rape, incest, or socioeconomic reasons, and more for fetal impairment or risk to the woman's health or life. As of 2022, countries that legally allow abortion on request or for socioeconomic reasons comprise about 60% of the world's population.

Abortion in Australia is legal nationwide. There are no federal abortion laws, and full decriminalisation of the practice has been enacted in all jurisdictions. Access to abortion varies between the states and territories: surgical abortions are readily available on request within the first 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy in most jurisdictions, and up to 16 weeks in Tasmania. Later term abortions can be obtained with the approval of two doctors, although the Australian Capital Territory only requires a single physician's approval.

Unlawful assembly is a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. If the group is about to start an act of disturbance, it is termed a rout; if the disturbance is commenced, it is then termed a riot. In England, the offence was abolished in 1986, but it exists in other countries.

Clifford Inch Menhennitt was an Australian jurist. He served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria from 1966 to 1979. While largely unknown today, Menhennitt was responsible for delivering the landmark 1969 Menhennitt ruling, which was the first legal precedent with regard to abortion law in Australia.

Self-defence is a defence permitting reasonable force to be used to defend one's self or another. This defence arises both from common law and the Criminal Law Act 1967. Self-defence is a justification defence rather than an excuse.

In the criminal law of Australia, self-defence is a legal defence to a charge of causing injury or death in defence of the person or, to a limited extent, property, or a partial defence to murder if the degree of force used was excessive.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bertram Wainer</span>

Bertram Barney Wainer was an Australian doctor who successfully campaigned for legal access to abortion for women in the state of Victoria. In the process he received multiple death threats from Victoria Police and survived at least three attempts on his life, including shootings and arson. He was also to uncover political and police corruption.

Duress in English law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in criminal law but also in civil law, where it is relevant to contract law and trusts law.

An offensive weapon is a tool made, adapted or intended for the purpose of inflicting physical injury upon another person.

Canadian criminal law allows for a common law defence of necessity. Necessitas non habet legem; "Necessity knows no law." This well-known maxim reflects the theoretical basis of the defence of necessity: that in dire circumstances of looming peril, the claims of positive law seems to weaken. This controversial common law or judge-made defence has only been firmly recognized in Canadian law since 1984. It is recognized in Canada as a defence for crimes committed in urgent situations of clear and imminent peril in which the accused has no safe avenue of escape or legal way out of the situation.

Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Abortion in Zimbabwe is available under limited circumstances. Zimbabwe's current abortion law, the Termination of Pregnancy Act, was enacted by Rhodesia's white minority government in 1977. The law permits abortion if the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman or threatens to permanently impair her physical health, if the child may be born with serious physical or mental defects, or if the fetus was conceived as a result of rape or incest. Nevertheless, an estimated 70,000+ illegal abortions are performed in Zimbabwe each year, resulting in around 20,000 maternal deaths.

English law contains homicide offences – those acts involving the death of another person. For a crime to be considered homicide, it must take place after the victim's legally recognised birth, and before their legal death. There is also the usually uncontroversial requirement that the victim be under the "Queen's peace". The death must be causally linked to the actions of the defendant. Since the abolition of the year and a day rule, there is no maximum time period between any act being committed and the victim's death, so long as the former caused the latter.

South African criminal law is the body of national law relating to crime in South Africa. In the definition of Van der Walt et al., a crime is "conduct which common or statute law prohibits and expressly or impliedly subjects to punishment remissible by the state alone and which the offender cannot avoid by his own act once he has been convicted." Crime involves the infliction of harm against society. The function or object of criminal law is to provide a social mechanism with which to coerce members of society to abstain from conduct that is harmful to the interests of society.

Abortion in Queensland is available on request in the first 22 weeks of pregnancy, with the approval of two doctors usually required for later terminations of pregnancy. Queensland law prohibits protesters from coming within 150 metres of an abortion clinic and requires conscientiously objecting doctors to refer women seeking an abortion to a doctor who will provide one. The current legal framework was introduced by the Palaszczuk Labor Government with the passage of the Termination of Pregnancy Act by the Parliament of Queensland on 17 October 2018 in a conscience vote. Before the Termination of Pregnancy Act took effect on 3 December 2018, abortion was subject to the Criminal Code and the common law McGuire ruling, which made abortion unlawful unless the abortion provider had a reasonable belief that a woman's physical or mental health was at risk. Availability varies across the state, and is more limited in rural and remote areas outside South East Queensland. In the absence of standardised data collection, it is estimated that between 10,000 and 14,000 abortions occur every year in Queensland.

<i>Rex v Bourne</i>

Rex v Bourne, The King v Aleck Bourne, or the Bourne Judgement, was a British landmark court case in 1938 relating to an abortion performed by obstetric surgeon Aleck Bourne on a 14-year old girl who had become pregnant as a result of being raped. The judge directed the jury towards the concept that situations arise where abortion might protect the health of the mother. Bourne was found not guilty of performing the procedure unlawfully and the judgement set the precedence for several subsequent abortion cases and the Abortion Act 1967 (UK).

References

  1. 1 2 3 R v Davidson (Menhennitt ruling) [1969] VicRp 85 , [1969] VR 667(3 June 1969), Supreme Court (Vic,Australia).
  2. 1 2 R v Bourne [1938] 3 All ER 615
  3. ↑ Williams, Glanville (1958). The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law (1 ed.). London: Faber & Faber.
  4. ↑ R v MacKay [1957] VicRp 79 , [1957] VR 560 at 573(16 April 1957), Supreme Court (Vic,Australia).
  5. 1 2 R v Wald (1971) 3 NSW DCR 25. Confirmed in CES v Superclinics (Australia) Pty Ltd [1995] NSWSC 103 , (1995) 38 NSWLR 47, Court of Appeal (NSW, Australia).
  6. ↑ R v Bayliss & Cullen (1986) 9 Queensland Lawyer Reports 8.
  7. 1 2 Pringle, Helen (2005). "The abortion debate: what a fizzer!". On Line Opinion. Retrieved 10 March 2006.
  8. ↑ Smith, Greg (1994). "Abortion Law in Australia with Particular Reference to New South Wales". In O'Donovan, Margaret; Stuparich, Jeremy (eds.). The Abortion Debate: Pro-Life Essays. Canberra: ACT Right to Life Association. ISBN   0-9598444-8-1.
  9. ↑ Abortion Law Reform Bill 2008
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.