Northern Ireland abortion refugees: Supreme Court

14 June 2017 by

 R (o.t.a A and B) v. Department of Health [2017] UKSC 41, 14 June 2017 – judgment here. 

Sometimes The Law comes to the rescue. And by this I do not mean constitutional law versus populism or the rule of law versus raw-knuckled fighting.  It just happens that, occasionally, litigation drawn from ordinary life encapsulates more political debating points than a week’s worth of press analysis.

If you want to hear the real deal about devolved government, Northern Ireland, sexual assault, the meaning of “England”, abortion, federalism, the power of the state, healthcare, medical tourism, women’s rights, discrimination, nationality, social security or the NHS, you need do no more than read this case. As for the majority judgments and the two dissenters, pay close attention to the language because within the phrasing other truths emerge.

Travel between countries not at war with each other is not (yet) illegal. But what the law prohibits here, may be legal there: see my post here on surrogacy arrangements in the US. Reproductive technology, unlike most medicine, creates a jurisdictional problem, largely because the result is not the end of the legal problem, but a child.

The claim can be put simply. Women in Northern Ireland have such restricted access to abortion that they have to come to England to seek out the services of private clinics such as Marie Stopes. This is because the Northern Ireland Assembly, which has responsibility for health services, only allows for termination in the case of pregnancies that threaten long-term psychiatric or physical harm to the carrier, something that few NI doctors are willing to sign off. The cost of the clinic and travel fees, along with the stigma, is enough to discourage some – victims of sexual assault or those carrying abnormal foetuses – from undertaking such a journey. The result is a very high proportion of NI women obtaining terminations in England, on the one hand, and on the other, children born to families ill-equipped to deal with their care and upbringing.

Free care under the NHS is only available to non-residents who are suffering from a pressing medical condition, such as appendicitis. A pregnant woman  is not considered to be within this category, so she cannot seek a termination under the English healthcare system.

This case raised, in essence, two questions:

  • Is it unlawful for the Secretary of State to refuse free abortion to Northern Irish residents?
  • Is residence of another country in the United Kingdom a personal characteristic, which makes discrimination on grounds of residence unlawful?

The Supreme Court dismissed the women’s appeal by a narrow majority (3-2). An analysis of the judgments – all very interesting – will follow shortly.

1 comment;

  1. We must all be responsible for our actions.
    Playing with Nature for Pleasure, misuse of what is designed for procreation will have consequences. We must face upto these consequences. Hence, it should not be made easier for anyone to take a life, to have an abortion.
    Governments who support that which is unethical, that which is immoral, that which is against the Natural Law will never flourish.
    Concern should be about what is right, not what is popular.
    So be it!!!

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: