AB (Termination of Pregnancy), Re [2019] EWCA Civ 1215 (11 July 2019)

AB (Termination of Pregnancy), Re [2019] EWCA Civ 1215 (11 July 2019)

The first instance judge erred by giving insufficient weight to AB's wishes and feelings, and to the views of her mother, social worker, and Official Solicitor, while placing excessive reliance on medical evidence alone. The evidence did not convincingly justify the profound intervention of a non-consensual termination. The best interests analysis was flawed, and the declarations permitting termination were set aside.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 1215
Parties
Appellant: AB; 1st Respondent: An NHS Foundation Trust; 2nd Respondent: Official Solicitor; 3rd Respondent: A London Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Court of Protection / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; declarations permitting termination set aside.
Legal Topics
Best Interests, Termination of Pregnancy, Article 8 ECHR, Mental Capacity Act 2005, Abortion Act 1967
Mental Capacity Law Medical Law Human Rights Best Interests Termination of Pregnancy Article 8 ECHR Mental Capacity Act 2005 Abortion Act 1967

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Appellant

An NHS Foundation Trust

1st Respondent

Official Solicitor

2nd Respondent

A London Authority

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Court of Protection / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was in the best interests of AB, a woman lacking capacity, to have her pregnancy terminated without her consent
  2. 2 Whether the first instance judge gave adequate weight to AB's wishes and feelings and the views of those closest to her
  3. 3 Whether the medical evidence alone justified the profound intervention of a non-consensual termination

Ratio Decidendi

The first instance judge erred by giving insufficient weight to AB's wishes and feelings, and to the views of her mother, social worker, and Official Solicitor, while placing excessive reliance on medical evidence alone. The evidence did not convincingly justify the profound intervention of a non-consensual termination. The best interests analysis was flawed, and the declarations permitting termination were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; declarations permitting termination set aside.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted.
  • Appeal allowed.