UN committee rules on abortion prohibition – the Round-up

15 June 2016 by

Photo credit: the Huffington Post

In the news

The UN human rights committee has found that restrictive abortion laws in Ireland had subjected a woman to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The complaint was filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Amanda Mellet, who was informed during her pregnancy that her foetus had congenital defects and would die in the womb or shortly after birth. She was forced to travel abroad for an abortion, since under the Constitution of Ireland it is unlawful to terminate a pregnancy unless the life of the woman is at substantial risk.

Abortion laws have previously undergone some limited change in Ireland following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in A, B and C v Ireland [2010]. The Court found that the lack of an effective and accessible procedure by which the third applicant could determine whether she qualified for a legal abortion violated her right to respect for private life (article 8 ECHR). However, article 8 was held not to confer a right to abortion.

Although the ruling of the UN human rights committee is not directly legally binding, it is likely to place increased pressure on the government to act to amend the Constitution and effect legislative reform. Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald has said that the findings should be taken “very seriously”, while Minister for Health Simon Harris has described the current situation as “utterly unacceptable”.

According to a recent poll conducted by Amnesty International, 87% of people in Ireland want expanded access to abortion. In response to the ruling of the UNHR Committee, Amnesty’s Executive Director in Ireland Colm O’Gorman said:

“The Irish public want change…the overwhelming majority consider Ireland’s near total abortion ban cruel, inhumane and discriminatory. Today’s finding shows that they are right.”

In other news

The Justice Select Committee has said that changes to court rules published in draft guidelines by the Sentencing Council could drive innocent defendants into making guilty pleas. Under the proposals defendants who plead guilty before going to trial, but not at the first opportunity, would only be entitled to a sentence reduction of a fifth rather than the current discount of a quarter. The Independent reports.

Despite identifying a number of positive measures taken by the UK government, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees together with the charity UNICEF have expressed concern that there remains “no systematic unifying approach to assessing and determining the best interests” of unaccompanied refugee children in the UK. Further information on the briefing can be found at the Justice Gap.

The Guardian: A British company has been found liable to pay compensation to workers who had been severely exploited by the firm and subjected to conditions of modern slavery. In a landmark ruling, Supperstone J held that the company had failed to pay the men the agricultural minimum wage, unlawfully withheld wages and deprived them of facilities to wash, rest, eat and drink.

The Independent: According to the human rights organisation Reprieve, Pakistan has executed more than 400 people since lifting a moratorium on the death penalty 18 months ago. Among those currently awaiting execution is  Abdul Basit, a disabled man paralysed from the waist down. Campaigners say his hanging would result in prolonged and horrific suffering and would be in violation of international law.

Publications

1 Crown Office Row and Hart Publishing have announced the publication of ‘The Inquest Book: the Law of Coroners and Inquests’. The book is edited by Caroline Cross and Neil Garnham, with contributions from barristers at 1 Crown Office Row. More details can be found here.

UK HRB posts

Families separated for immigration purposes – John Hopgood, Policy and Research Manager for Bail for Immigration Detainees

Restriction of student loans in Scotland to under-55s deemed to be unlawfully discriminatory – Fraser Simpson

Hannah Lynes

 

2 comments


  1. Dan Smith says:

    You’re more likely to get a warm welcome in your home town than get Ireland to change its laws on abortion.

  2. ritajoseph says:

    A reasonable person cannot accept the Human Rights Committee’s re-interpretation of the States parties obligation to protect the right to life of “every human being” without exception as constituting ” cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” for an unborn child’s mother.

    “Choice” is no rational excuse for lethal discrimination or prejudice against a child detected prenatally to have a disability.
    To re-interpret the State’s legal protection for the unborn child being protected and nurtured in her/his mother’s womb against deliberated killing of an unborn child because the child has a disability as “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” is just ideologically driven propaganda based on the deeply offensive, prejudiced belief—that these tiny child victims of procured abortion,because of a disability are less than human and have lesser human rights than other human beings. The offence here, dehumanization of the victims, was named by one of the judges at the Nuremberg Trials as “criminal impertinence”:

    “The victim is shown to be inhuman while the executioner is to be pitied. The condemned is put in the wrong and the slayer in the right. A person is robbed of all–his very life–but it is the assassin who is the sufferer.” [Nuremberg Einsatzgruppen Case (October 1946-April 1949) Volume IV/1]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: