Trial of Carla Foster

Last updated

The trial of Carla Foster took place after a British mother of three children was prosecuted under UK criminal law for carrying out an abortion too late into her pregnancy in May 2020 during the Covid pandemic. [1] [2] Foster was convicted in Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court by Justice Edward Pepperall "for administering drugs or using instruments to procure an abortion" under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Contents

On 12 June 2023 Pepperall sentenced Foster to a 28-month custodial term, at least 14 months of which would have to be spent in prison. [3] The case provoked widespread outrage and considerable debate in the United Kingdom as a result of the perceived harshness of the prosecution as well as the fitness for purpose and age of abortion laws. [4] Following a hearing at London's Court of Appeal, Foster's sentence was reduced to a 14 month suspended sentence, meaning she would be freed from prison.

The case

Foster carried out the abortion after procuring the necessary drugs through a remote consultation under the “pills by post” scheme introduced in England and Wales during the Covid pandemic lockdown. [3] Foster discovered she was pregnant in December 2019 before arranging a telephone consultation with the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) in May 2020. On May 11 Foster had entered labour and delivered a stillborn [3] at her home, attended by emergency services. [5] There was no sign the foetus took an independent breath, according to the prosecution. [5]

Trial and sentencing

In June 2023 Foster was sentenced to a 28-month prison term for inducing an abortion in a gestational range the coroner estimated at 32 to 34 weeks of pregnancy. The ceiling for legal abortion in England and Wales is 24 weeks' and after 10 weeks such a procedure must be carried out in a clinic. Justice Pepperall ruled that half of the defendant's sentence should be spent in custody. He added that if Foster had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity at magistrates court, the custodial sentence could have been suspended. [6]

Foster was initially charged with the statutory offence of child destruction, punishable by life imprisonment, which she denied. She subsequently pleaded guilty to a charge under section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for administering drugs or using instruments to procure an abortion, which was accepted by the prosecution. [2] [1]

The prosecution alleged Foster told police in an interview that she had lied to BPAS about how far along her pregnancy was to obtain the pills. The defence argued that lockdown and restrictions on face-to-face appointments impaired access to healthcare, leaving the defendant reliant on information from the internet.

During sentencing, which took place at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court on 12 June 2023, Pepperall accepted that the defendant was "wracked by guilt" , showed "genuine remorse" and had suffered depression. He observed that she was a good mother to three children, one of whom has special needs and would suffer from her imprisonment.

Prior to sentencing, groups including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives wrote to Pepperall to "plead to Your Honour to consider leniency in this case … we are fearful that if the case before you receives a custodial sentence it may signal to other women who access tele-medical abortion services, or who experience later gestation deliveries, that they risk imprisonment if they seek medical care."

Pepperall responded by telling the defendant that the letter was inappropriate. The authors were "concerned that your imprisonment might deter other women from accessing telemedical abortion services and other late-gestation women from seeking medical care or from being open and honest with medical professionals," he said. He went on to state that the letter also, "Has the capacity to be seen as special pleading by those who favour wider access to abortions and is, in my judgment, just as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups campaigning for more restrictive laws". Pepperall concluded that, "If the medical profession considers that judges are wrong to imprison women who procure a late abortion outside the 24-week limit then it should lobby Parliament to change that law and not judges who are charged with the duty of applying the law."

The day before the sentencing, at its AGM, and having anticipated a criminal conviction as Foster faced sentencing "under Victorian era law", Humanists UK unanimously passed an emergency motion stating that, "In light of growing threats to the right to abortion, this meeting reaffirms the support of Humanists UK for the decriminalisation of abortion in England and Wales." The organisation had previously urged decriminalisation of abortion to protect women's rights after revealing that the UK Government "unilaterally removed ‘women’s reproductive and sexual rights’ from a multinational statement on women's rights. This happened not long after the US Supreme Court had overturned Roe v Wade ." [7]

Sentencing aftermath

The sentence handed down by Justice Pepperall was widely criticised. Noting that the legislation the defendant was sentenced under dated back to 1861, the chief executive of BPAS Clare Murphy said she was "shocked and appalled" by the woman's sentence which was based on an "archaic law". "No woman can ever go through this again," she said. Murphy noted that, "Over the last three years, there has been an increase in the numbers of women and girls facing the trauma of lengthy police investigations and threatened with up to life imprisonment under our archaic abortion law. Vulnerable women in the most incredibly difficult of circumstances deserve more from our legal system."

Chiara Capraro, head of women's rights programs at Amnesty International UK was quoted by the Telegraph saying that, "It is shocking – and quite frankly terrifying – that in 2023 a woman in the UK has been sentenced to jail because of a law dating back to 1861. Access to abortion is essential healthcare and should be managed as such. This is a tremendously sad story and underscores the desperate need for legal reform in relation to reproductive health." [2]

Dame Diana Johnson, who previously tried to repeal the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act with a backbench bill, said ministers should act to change laws that were also having a "chilling" effect on doctors, midwives and others. [8]

Labour MP Stella Creasy called for "urgent reform" of the law. In a tweet whose contents she expanded on in an interview with Sky News, Creasy said, "The average prison sentence for a violent offence in England is 18 months. A woman who had an abortion without following correct procedures just got 28 months under an 1868 act – we need urgent reform to make safe access for all women in England, Scotland and Wales a human right." [9]

Mandu Reid, leader of the Women's Equality Party, stated: "I am devastated for the woman at the centre of this case, and for her children, who have been forcibly separated from their mum. This conviction serves no one, not her, not her children, not the public interest. All it does is punish a woman for seeking healthcare in the middle of a pandemic and risk deterring women who want or need an abortion from seeking that care in future. No one deserves to be criminalised for seeking healthcare, which is a human right." [10]

The Crown Prosecution Service, which authorised the prosecution, stated: "These exceptionally rare cases are complex and traumatic. Our prosecutors have a duty to ensure that laws set by Parliament are properly considered and applied when making difficult charging decisions."  The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children called it a "horrifying case" that involved a "fully viable baby of eight months." Its spokesperson opined that, "The real fault in this tragedy lies strongly with abortion providers who pushed for dangerous home abortions, and are now using this case to push for abortion up to birth." [3]

Conservative MP Caroline Noakes, chairwoman of the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, also joined calls for reform of the 1861 legislation used to prosecute Foster. She told the BBC's World Tonight programme that MPs should "decide in the 21st Century whether we should be relying on legislation that is centuries old. This is not something that has been debated in any great detail for many years now, and cases like this, although tragic and thankfully very rare, throw into sharp relief that we are relying on legislation that is very out of date. It makes a case for Parliament to start looking at this issue in detail." [3] The day after the prosecution, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stated that they were not yet aware of any plans to change abortion laws. [11]

National march and protest

In the days after the sentence was passed, outrage from feminist groups at Foster's prosecution spread and grew. Women's rights groups including The Fawcett Society (founded in 1866, just five years after the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 was ratified by parliament), the Women's Equality Party and BPAS organised a national protest and march to demand reform of abortion law. The march was planned to take place in London Saturday 17 June 2023, convening at the Royal Courts of Justice and marching 1.2 miles to the Palace of Westminster. [11] [12] [13]

Court of Appeal hearing

On 18 July 2023, an appeal hearing against the sentence took place at the Court of Appeal in London, before Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Lord Justice Holroyde and Mrs Justice Lambert. The Court reduced Foster's sentence to a 14 month suspended sentence, allowing her to be released from prison. Announcing the Court's decision, Sharp described the case as a "very sad case" and one "that calls for compassion, not punishment". [14]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion in the United Kingdom</span>

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."

Public opinion on abortion has changed dramatically in Ireland. 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 fetal 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 fetus 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hudud Ordinances</span> Laws in Pakistan enacted in 1979

The Hudud Ordinances are laws in Pakistan enacted in 1979 as part of the Islamization of Pakistan by Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the sixth president of Pakistan. It replaced parts of the British-era Pakistan Penal Code, adding new criminal offences of adultery and fornication, and new punishments of whipping, amputation, and stoning to death. After much controversy and criticism parts of the law were extensively revised in 2006 by the Women's Protection Bill.

Criminal transmission of HIV is the intentional or reckless infection of a person with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This is often conflated, in laws and in discussion, with criminal exposure to HIV, which does not require the transmission of the virus and often, as in the cases of spitting and biting, does not include a realistic means of transmission. Some countries or jurisdictions, including some areas of the U.S., have enacted laws expressly to criminalize HIV transmission or exposure, charging those accused with criminal transmission of HIV. Other countries charge the accused under existing laws with such crimes as murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, assault or fraud.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">X Case</span> Irish court case permitting abortion in exceptional circumstances

Attorney General v X [1992] 1 IR 1 was a judgment of the Irish Supreme Court which established the right of Irish women to an abortion if a pregnant woman's life was at risk because of pregnancy, including the risk of suicide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magistrates' court (England and Wales)</span> Lower court in England and Wales

In England and Wales, a magistrates' court is a lower court which hears matters relating to summary offences and some triable either-way matters. Some civil law issues are also decided here, notably family proceedings. In 2010, there were 320 magistrates' courts in England and Wales; by 2020, a decade later, 164 of those had closed. The jurisdiction of magistrates' courts and rules governing them are set out in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Offences Against the Person Act 1861</span> UK criminal statute

The Offences against the Person Act 1861 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It consolidated provisions related to offences against the person from a number of earlier statutes into a single Act. For the most part these provisions were, according to the draftsman of the Act, incorporated with little or no variation in their phraseology. It is one of a group of Acts sometimes referred to as the Criminal Law Consolidation Acts 1861. It was passed with the object of simplifying the law. It is essentially a revised version of an earlier consolidation act, the Offences Against the Person Act 1828, incorporating subsequent statutes.

Murder is an offence under the common law legal system of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

Abortion is illegal in El Salvador. The law formerly permitted an abortion to be performed under some limited circumstances, but in 1998 all exceptions were removed when a new abortion law went into effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion in Malta</span>

Abortion in Malta is illegal except in cases where the life of the pregnant woman is at risk. Until 2023, it was illegal without exception. Malta has the most restrictive laws regarding abortion in Europe with the law in Malta held to be influenced by Roman Catholic Christianity, which formed part of the identity of 82% of the population according to the 2021 census.

Child destruction is the name of a statutory offence in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, Hong Kong and in some parts of Australia.

Foeticide, or feticide, is the act of killing a fetus, or causing a miscarriage. Definitions differ between legal and medical applications, whereas in law, feticide frequently refers to a criminal offense, in medicine the term generally refers to a part of an abortion procedure in which a provider intentionally induces fetal demise to avoid the chance of an unintended live birth, or as a standalone procedure in the case of selective reduction.

The legal system in the United Arab Emirates is based on civil law, and Sharia law in the personal status matters of Muslims and blood money compensation. Personal status matters of non-Muslims are based on civil law. The UAE constitution established a federal court system and allows all emirates to establish local courts systems. The emirates of Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Ras Al Khaimah have local court systems, while other emirates follow the federal court system. Some financial free trade zones in Abu Dhabi and Dubai have their own legal and court systems based on English common law; local businesses in both emirates are allowed to opt-in to the jurisdiction of common law courts for business contracts.

The Keighley child sex abuse ring was a group of twelve men who committed serious sexual offences against two under-aged girls in the English town of Keighley and city of Bradford, West Yorkshire. In December 2015, they were found guilty of rape and other forms of sexual abuse by a unanimous jury verdict at Bradford Crown Court. They were sentenced in February 2016 to a total of 130 years in jail. The main victim, who had been targeted by ten of the men, was aged between 13 and 14 at the time of the attacks between 2011 and 2012.

A and B v Eastern Health Board, commonly known as the C Case, was a legal case in Ireland on whether a thirteen-year-old girl, who had become pregnant as a result of rape and was suicidal, could be permitted to travel abroad to obtain an abortion. She was in the care of the Eastern Health Board (EHB), an organ of the Irish state, and the abortion was resisted by her parents, the applicants in the case. Abortion law in Ireland at the time of the case made abortion inaccessible within Ireland; however, in the X Case (1992), the Supreme Court had ruled that abortion was permissible under the Constitution where there was a threat to a woman's life, including a risk of suicide.

Abortion in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is only legal in five instances: if the pregnancy is the result of rape; if the pregnancy is a result of incest; at the request of the couple after the approval of a regulatory committee; if the continuation of the pregnancy puts the woman's life in danger; if the foetus is deformed.

The laws pertaining to abortion in Malaysia are generally ambiguous and specific legislation varies greatly by state. Access to abortion in Malaysia has been hampered by religious, cultural and social stigmas against abortion, poor awareness of abortion legislation among health professionals and the high cost of abortion services in the private health sector. As a result, risky unsafe abortions are prevalent in Malaysia. Under Sections 312–316 of the Penal Code, it is de jure permitted to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother or in cases where their physical or mental health is at risk, for the first 120 days of gestation.

Sir Edward Brian Pepperall is a British High Court judge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Life imprisonment in Singapore</span>

Life imprisonment is a legal penalty in Singapore. This sentence is applicable for more than forty offences under Singapore law, such as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, attempted murder, kidnapping by ransom, criminal breach of trust by a public servant, voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons, and trafficking of firearms, in addition to caning or a fine for certain offences that warrant life imprisonment.

<i>Rex v Bourne</i> 1938 British court case on abortion

Rex v Bourne, The King v Aleck Bourne, or the Bourne Judgment, 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 judgment set the precedence for several subsequent abortion cases and the Abortion Act 1967 (UK).

References

  1. 1 2 Collins, Riyah; PA Media (2023-06-12). "Mother jailed for taking abortion pills after legal limit". BBC News. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  2. 1 2 3 Stephens, Max (2023-06-13). "Woman jailed for using abortion pills after legal cut-off date while rules eased in lockdown". The Telegraph. ISSN   0307-1235 . Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Andersson, Jasmine; Seddon, Sean (2023-06-13). "Senior Tory MP seeks abortion law rethink after mother jailed". BBC News. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  4. ↑ Blewett, Same (2023-06-13). "Outrage as mother-of-three jailed for taking abortion pills after legal cut off". The Independent. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  5. 1 2 Sleator, David Woode, Crime Correspondent | Ross Slater | Laurence (2023-06-13). "UK abortion laws: MPs seek change after woman jailed". The Times. ISSN   0140-0460 . Retrieved 2023-06-13.{{cite news}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ↑ Associated Press (2023-06-12). "Mother Jailed in England for Medicated Abortion Later in Pregnancy". VOA. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  7. ↑ "Humanists UK urges decriminalisation of abortion as woman faces sentencing under Victorian era law". Humanists UK. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  8. ↑ Quinn, Ben (2023-06-13). "Ministers urged to relax abortion laws in Great Britain after woman jailed". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  9. ↑ "Woman jailed for taking abortion pills after legal limit during lockdown". Sky News. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  10. ↑ Thomas, Tobi (2023-06-12). "Outrage at jail sentence for woman who took abortion pills later than UK limit". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  11. 1 2 Chantler-Hicks, Lydia (2023-06-13). "Demands for abortion law reform after mother jailed in England". Evening Standard. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  12. ↑ "Time To Act". Eventbrite. 2023-06-17. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  13. ↑ "Women's Equality". Women's Equality. Retrieved 2023-06-13.
  14. ↑ Rack, Susie (18 July 2023). "Carla Foster: Mother jailed over lockdown abortion to be released". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved 18 July 2023.
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.