CPS faces criticism for failure to prosecute over sex selection abortion as Thornberry contacts the DPP

The Christian Medical Fellowship has said that the failure of the Crown Prosecution Service to take action in recent cases of sex selection abortions and pre-signing of abortion forms raises serious questions about its role in upholding the law.

The CPS has this week opted to take no further action in regard to two named doctors who sought to authorise abortions on grounds of sex selection last year. In a letter to Christian Medical Fellowship the Metropolitan Police have said that, although there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction, the CPS say it is not in the public interest to prosecute.

With regard to doctors at 14 NHS Trusts who pre-signed abortion forms authorising abortions for women they had not actually seen, the CPS has also opted not to act on grounds that ‘the practice of pre-signing has clearly evolved over a number of years’, is ‘clearly widespread’ and may well be due to ‘clinical pressures’ or ‘good intention’.

Dr Peter Saunders, CEO of CMF commented, "Authorising abortions purely on grounds of sex selection and pre-signing abortion authorisation forms are both flagrant breaches of the provisions of the Abortion Act. The unwillingness of the CPS to act in these cases after an investigation spanning 18 months is quite extraordinary. It sends a strong signal that sex selection abortions are now effectively legal in Britain, rubber stamps the practice of pre-signing and gives a green light to doctors to interpret the abortion law as they see fit in the knowledge that the authorities will turn a blind eye."

Continuing Dr Saunders commented: "Knowingly and wilfully making false statements on statutory documents – which is what abortion authorisation forms are – is actually a form of perjury. But we seem to have reached a point where, at the whim of the CPS, clear statutory procedures can be disregarded by doctors and NHS Trusts without any fear of legal repercussions. This puts doctors above the law and raises serious questions about the role of the CPS in upholding the will of parliament." 

Concluding Dr Saunder said: "The matter calls for urgent investigation and the public deserves a full explanation as to why acts in blatant breach of the law are being tolerated by the CPS in this way. We are seeking legal advice over the matter."

The Shadow Attorney General Emily Thornberry MP, has today written to the Director of Public Prosecutions to request an urgent review of the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute two doctors for attempting to arrange gender-selective abortions. The full text of the letter is below:

Mr Keir Starmer QC
CPS Director of Public Prosecutions
Rose Court
2 Southwark Bridge
London
SE1 9HS 

Dear Keir 

I am writing to request that you carry out an urgent review of the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute two doctors for attempting to arrange gender-selective abortions. As I understand it, the evidential test of the Crown Prosecutors Code had been met in these cases but prosecutors decided that it would not be in the public interest to bring them to court because they could be brought before the General Medical Council (GMC) instead. 

As you will know, the GMC is a regulator and cannot bring criminal proceedings. The provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 are crystal clear. The conduct of abortions for reasons not stated in that Act is a criminal offence, not just a regulatory one. To decide not prosecute because a regulator can hear the matter instead is to disapply the law and undermine the will of Parliament. 

Furthermore, the CPS under your directorship has made tackling violence against women and girls a priority. Such progress as has been made in this area will be completely undermined if the agency is seen to wash its hands of alleged abortion on the grounds of gender selection. 

I would like to know if you or any of your senior advisors approved the decision not to prosecute. I would also like to see that decision subjected to an urgent review at the highest level within the CPS and for you to make a public statement clarifying the CPS’s stance on prosecuting these offences. I am copying into this letter the Attorney General.

Best wishes


Emily Thornberry MP
Shadow Attorney General

Thornberry asks Bar Standards Board to examine whether code of conduct broken

Shadow Attorney General, Emily Thornberry, has written to The Baroness Deech QC, Chair of the Bar Standards Board, to ask the Bar Standards Board to examine whether Robert Colover may have violated the Bar Standards Board's code of conduct. The full text of Emily Thornberry's letter is below:

Dear Baroness Deech, 

I am writing to express my concern that barrister Robert Colover may have violated the Bar Standards Board's code of conduct when representing the Crown in the sentencing of Neil Wilson for sexual activity with a child on Monday 5th August 2013 at Snaresbrook Crown Court. He referred to the 13 year-old victim of the crime as "predatory" and "sexually experienced". The clear meaning of such words is that the child victim was not only complicit in the crime inflicted upon her, but that it was she who manipulated the perpetrator. 

The Crown Prosecution Service has acknowledged that the language was "inappropriate". I would go further than that and suggest that it has brought the profession into disrepute and could deter vulnerable victims from coming forward in future. 

I would therefore be grateful if the Board could examine whether the following articles of the Code have been breached in this instance: 

301. A barrister must have regard to paragraph 104 and must not:
(a) engage in conduct whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise which is:
(i) discreditable to a barrister; or
(iii) likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute;

303. A barrister:
(a) must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means the lay client's best interests and do so without regard to his own interests or to any consequences to himself or to any other person (including any colleague, professional client or other intermediary or another barrister, the barrister's employer or any Authorised Body of which the barrister may be an owner or manager);

Conduct in Court
708. A barrister when conducting proceedings in Court:
(a) is personally responsible for the conduct and presentation of his case and must exercise personal judgement upon the substance and purpose of statements made and questions asked; 

I am copying this letter to the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, the Head of the Bar Council, Maura McGowan QC and the Director of the Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC. 

Yours sincerely, 

Emily Thornberry MP  

Islington South and Finsbury