'Offensive Abortion' Case Appeals to Lords Following 'Bizarre' Judgement

A Christian grandmother is to appeal to the House of Lords after a High Court judge yesterday made what she called "a most bizarre" judgement, and claims has created a new political class in Britain.

On January 23, Veronica Connolly, a devout Roman Catholic, went to the High Court to ask for a Judicial Review to clarify the law on Human Rights and Free Speech. Mrs Connolly had previously been convicted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 for trying to "educate" pharmacists who dispensed the morning after pill to "another point of view".

In 2005, when the Government started to allow pharmacists to dispense the morning after pill over the counter, Mrs Connolly, a pro-life campaigner, telephoned her local pharmacists to ask if they were dispensing the pill and if they were, whether she could post them pro-life information.

One local pharmacy, on receiving Mrs Connolly's information called the police. In October 2005, Mrs Connolly was charged and convicted of three offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the pharmacist claimed he and his staff were upset by the material and found it offensive. Mrs Connolly unsuccessfully appealed against conviction on January 27, 2006.

This morning, Lord Justice Dyson and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton handed down their judgement on the case, ruling that while Mrs Connolly was entitled to send pictures of aborted foetuses in expression of her anti-abortion beliefs, they should have only been sent to people such as MPs, who have a direct opportunity to influence debate, or a change in the abortion law, not members of the public, even if they are professionals actively involved in the moral implications of such a law.

Mrs Connolly has instructed her legal team to appeal to the House of Lords.

She said: "This is the most bizarre ruling. Ordinary women and girls take the morning after pill, and pharmacists and their staff hand it over the counter. They are all directly involved in the process of abortion, and they have a right to know the facts on both sides of the argument.

"What the judge is saying is that only MPs have a right to detailed information on social and moral and ethical issues, not the public. But on every moral issue which affects the public, it is everyone's democratic right to be able to obtain full information on which they can make an informed decision.

"Then, if they choose to do, they can campaign for a change in the law. That's democracy. What this ruling does is create a special political class as well as bringing in a new censorship on what sensitive information can be available to the electorate.

"The rational behind this judgement is flawed."

Mrs Connolly's case rests on the interpretation of Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgement comes in the same week the Lord Chancellor said he was to take steps to convince ordinary people that the Human Rights Act (which enshrines the ECHR), was necessary and was introduced for the benefit of all people in Britain.