Consequently, Mrs Connolly was charged, and on 13 July 2005, she entered a plea of 'Not Guilty' at Solihull Magistrates Court. On October 6, she was convicted of offences contrary to the 1998 Act 1998. On 27 January 2006, she unsuccessfully appealed against her conviction.
Mrs Connolly, who has instructed civil rights barrister Paul Diamond to represent her in court today, said: "My cases raises fundamental human rights issues, including freedom of religion, and manifestation of religion, under article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and freedom of expression, under article 10.
"The court said the pictures I sent were offensive, and that the purpose of sending those pictures was to cause offence. Yet, I was only seeking to express my deeply held views on the issue of abortion, and seeking to communicate those views boldly, but peacefully.
"Surely in a free and Christian country, and indeed a pluralist society, I should be able to express my faith in ways which I feel are appropriate?
"Tomorrow, we are seeking clarification on a point of law. If the law, as used in my case, really means that you cannot debate, demonstrate or try to educate people towards another point of view simply because they, or anyone, can claim their are sensitive and offended by your actions, then freedom of speech and expression, and democracy has been killed off by a little-known Act of Parliament, and should be repealed."
Andrea Minichiello Williams, public policy officer for the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, which supports Mrs Connolly in her appeal, added: "Surely there must be many more cases worthy of prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act 1988.
"Mrs Connolly's case is seemingly far from the most serious example of an 'indecent' or 'grossly offensive' communication. Mrs Connolly asked the permission of highly qualified and educated people, dealing daily with the moral, social and ethical issues surrounding abortion, if she could end them information giving another side to the debate. These clinicians, who, even as pharmacology students, would have seen far worse pictures, agreed and only one person made a complaint. This Act was used to the extreme to suppress freedoms of expression and speech.
"Any form of religious expression can, of course, be offensive, in that other members of society will often disagree with it. But that is often the nature of the expression of religious views.
"What this case demonstrates is the suppression of an unpopular political viewpoint, and specifically, that it demonstrates a suppression of biblical teaching on the sanctity of life."
