Why a British woman was sentenced to 28 months in prison for an abortion

Carla Foster, a 44-year-old mother of three, admitted to receiving her abortion pills through the “pills in the mail” program introduced during the COVID-19[feminine pandémie. Bien que le programme ait été introduit comme une mesure temporaire de deux ans le 29 août 2020 par le gouvernement, il a été prolongé indéfiniment en mars de l’année dernière après que les députés britanniques ont voté pour “obliger les ministres à le rendre permanent” au lieu de le supprimer complètement. , a déclaré The Guardian.

Selon le programme, les femmes pourraient recevoir des médicaments après une consultation à distance pour les grossesses jusqu’à 10 semaines. La décision visait à bénéficier aux femmes en leur donnant deux comprimés pour mettre fin à leur grossesse dans l’intimité de leur domicile au lieu d’une clinique ou d’un hôpital.

Bien que la femme dans le cas présent ait acheté légalement les pilules abortives, elle a fini par dépasser la limite de 10 semaines pour provoquer des avortements. Lors de l’une des audiences précédentes dans cette affaire, l’information a été révélée après qu’elle a admis avoir pris les médicaments après la date limite.

The incident first came to light on May 11, 2020, when an emergency call was made saying she was in labor. However, the baby was confirmed dead around 45 minutes later, the BBC said. Following this, a post-mortem examination indicated that the cause of the baby’s death was abortion drugs, adding that the fetus was 32 to 34 weeks old.

On June 12, the woman appeared in Crown Court for sentencing, where she could face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

What is a Crown Court?

Originating in England and Wales, a Crown Court deals with the most serious criminal offences. Currently, the UK has around 70 such courts. It usually has a jury that decides whether someone is guilty or not, as well as a judge that decides the sentence or sentence for a particular crime.

Criminal cases, including offenses such as murder, rape and robbery, are often taken to Crown court. However, it also deals with appeals against a trial court conviction or “trial trial conviction cases”.

A range of sentences can be given by the Crown Courts, such as community, prison or life sentences. However, an appeal can be made against a sentence or conviction handed down by a Crown Court. Additionally, anyone can request a review of a sentence without being involved in the case.

What exactly is the offense for which the woman is convicted?

In March, the woman pleaded guilty to the offense of obtaining drugs to induce an abortion, which is still an offense under Britain’s Offenses Against the Person Act 1861.

Section 58 of the 1861 Act states that if “any pregnant woman”, with intent to “cause her own miscarriage”, unlawfully administers poison or other injurious thing to herself, or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means with similar intent, she will be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, will be liable to “penal servitude for life or a term not less than three years, – or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labor, and with or without solitary confinement.This section also penalizes miscarriages caused by any person other than the pregnant woman by the defined means.

A similar provision in the 1861 Act is Section 59, which considers the act of anyone who procures drugs, implements, poison or any other injurious thing, knowing that it is intended for unlawful use or is used to intentionally induce miscarriage of a woman, guilty of a “misdemeanor” and, when convicted, punishable by three years penal servitude or two years imprisonment, with or without hard labor, at the discretion of the court.

Essentially, this means abortions across Britain are not fully decriminalised. However, in 1965 a compromise was reached where a woman could have an abortion after obtaining the signature of two doctors.

To date, abortions in England, Scotland and Wales are generally legal up to 24 weeks, but must be performed in a hospital or clinic anytime after 10 weeks, The Guardian reported. On the other hand, in Northern Ireland, a law was passed in 2019 by the British government decriminalizing abortions.

What happened in today’s hearing?

At today’s hearing at Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court, the prosecution argued the woman knew she was overdue and had knowingly given false information during her consultation at distance.

Knowing that she had been pregnant for about three months, the prosecution attorney told the court that police had gathered evidence from the woman’s web search history and messages, which indicated a ” careful planning” to induce a miscarriage and hide a pregnancy.

In addition, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which provided her with the abortion pills, informed her that the drugs were given to her on the basis of the belief that she had provided accurate information about her pregnancy to the seven weeks old. According to the BBC, the court heard she searched for ‘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 case to the prosecution”, according to Hannah Al-Othman of The Times. Adding that she spoke to the police, without which the case would not have made it to court, she said she will live with her decision to end her pregnancy this way for the rest of her life. Defense counsel on her behalf argued that the lockdown had reduced in-person appointments and so she had to seek information online.

What did the court say?

Judge Edward Pepperall said he had “exceptionally” received a letter from various medical bodies and presidents of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Midwives, asking for a non-custodial sentence in the case.

However, the court deemed the letter “inappropriate”, holding that only parliament can change the law and those who oppose it must keep their claims before parliament. The court clarified that judges can only apply the law as it stands. Considering it a “tragic case”, the court said it accepted that the woman was in emotional turmoil. The court also said that had she pleaded guilty sooner, it might have considered suspending her prison sentence.

However, the court observed that the level of guilt of the woman was high due to her deliberate abortion beyond the legal limit and lying to obtain the pills. For this reason, the court sentenced her to more than two years in prison.