It’s “naïve and simplistic” to suggest silent prayer outside abortion clinics “cannot be considered ‘detrimental’ to a person’s quality of life,” High Court judges said on Friday.
The remark is part of a judgement that dismissed legal challenges brought against the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council over its creation of abortion clinic buffer zones using a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO).
The abortion clinic buffer zone in Bournemouth is one of five such zones introduced in England using PSPOs following claims that women were harassed by pro-life demonstrators. Campaigners previously mounted an unsuccessful challenge against the first such PSPO issued by London’s Ealing Council.
Dismissing claims by Livia Tossici-Bolt, a former clinical scientist, who leads 40 Days for life Bournemouth, and the Christian Concern group, Lord Justice Warb and Mrs. Justice Thornton said on Friday that the council has “lawfully followed the democratic and consultative procedures” when making the PSPO.
“The decision-maker was entitled to conclude that the threshold conditions for making an order were satisfied,” the judges said.
They also said the order’s interference with some human rights “is justified by the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of women attending the clinic, their associates, and the staff.”
The BCP council made a PSPO in October 2022 which prohibits a range of activities outside of an abortion clinic including approving or disapproving abortion with graphic, verbal, or written means, prayer, or counselling.
The order says the activities had been “carried out in public places within the council’s area” and “had a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality,” adding that the effect or likely effect was or was likely to be persistent.
Therefore, the activities are “unreasonable, and justifies the restrictions imposed by the notice,” it reads.
The claimants argued that the prohibitions are “unreasonably extensive,” including those that “cannot be considered relevant to the allegedly detrimental activities the order is designed to prevent.”
They also said the order interferes with the rights of Mrs. Tossici-Bolt to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, assembly, and association, which are protected under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), and the rights of women who may appreciate alternative options to abortion.
The judges disagreed with all grounds.
“When it comes to the sufficiency of the evidence, we are wholly unpersuaded that the council’s consultation exercise was flawed in the ways alleged, nor do we consider it arguable that the council’s evidence base was inadequate for that or any other reason,” the judgement says.
The judges cited the consultation report commissioned by the council, which included “orderly and detailed” evidence submitted by the clinic.
“The evidence includes instances of individuals feeling agitated, harassed, and intimidated by the handing out of leaflets, or being stared at,” the judgement reads.
“Some clients reported that protestors ’singing‘ and ’praying‘ caused them to feel ’anxious,‘ ’nervous,‘ ’uncomfortable,‘ ’angry.‘ Others felt ’intimidated and nervous’ as a result of protestors ’standing outside,'” it reads.
The judges said that the protest activities outside the clinic, “including silent prayer and the handing out of leaflets,” were “quite reasonably, interpreted as an expression of opposition or disapproval.
“It is, in our judgment, naïve and simplistic to suggest that activities of this kind in this context cannot be considered ‘detrimental’ to a person’s quality of life and ‘unreasonable’ just because they are silent, or the literature distributed is informative rather than shocking and confrontational.”
The judges also said they can’t accept the submission that the prohibition on displaying images of mothers and babies is disproportionate because it is not “related directly or indirectly to the termination of pregnancy.”
The judges rejected the claim that the order discriminates against Christians and said the claimant’s rights to the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association are qualified rights and need to be balanced against the rights of others, such as the right to respect for private and family life.
The judges also said they are “not persuaded” that the council had ignored the rights of women who may want other information because the information can be accessed at other times and places and “the vast majority of visits to the clinic were made by women who had no desire at that time to be provided with any information about alternatives to abortion unless it be by doctors and other specialist trained staff employed at the clinic.”
Responding to the ruling, Mrs. Tossici-Bolt said her group members are “very disappointed” by the ruling.
“I, and my group of volunteers, would never dream of doing something that causes intimidation and harassment and I find extremely concerning that unfounded accusations of such reprehensible behaviour have been used for ideological gains to discredit genuine humanitarian endeavours,” she said in a statement.
She said campaigners “will continue to support women in crisis pregnancies and will continue to fight for justice.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of Christian Concern, said they will appeal the ruling, and claimed that “there is no evidence whatsoever to show that anyone is being harassed outside abortion clinics.”
“The truth is quite the opposite. It is the abortion supporters who intimidate and harass and do not permit the viewpoint that shows the women a pathway of life and hope,” she said.
Ms. Williams said the pro-life campaign outside clinics is “one of the few lifelines left to those who feel helpless and coerced into going through with an abortion,” and that buffer zones are “an oppressive part of the current culture which force consent and silence dissent.
“The saddest thing of all is that we are actually talking about human lives,” she said, calling on the government to “turn back” the introduction buffer zones across the country by the Public Order Act 2023.
In a draft guidance on enforcing the new buffer zone law on Monday, the Home Office said prayers shouldn’t be automatically considered unlawful, and that silent prayer isn’t unlawful “under any circumstances” unless the person’s “conduct is also intrusive.”
