On 4 September 2013, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced its controversial decision not to prosecute two doctors accused of attempting to commit abortions based on foetal gender. The
On 4 September 2013, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced its controversial decision not to prosecute two doctors accused of attempting to commit abortions based on foetal gender. The allegations arose out of an undercover investigation conducted by The Daily Telegraph newspaper and subsequently the Metropolitan Police.
Secret filming by The Daily Telegraph showed medical professionals apparently readily agreeing to organise abortions on the basis that the mother was rejecting the gender of her baby. Terminating a pregnancy because of foetal gender is not one of the reasons provided in section 1(1) of The Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by section 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) which sets out the circumstances in which an abortion may be performed.
The CPS found that there was sufficient evidence to bring forward the prosecutions of the attempted crimes, but concluded that it was not in the public interest to do so, stating that " One highly relevant factor in this regard is that the responsible professional body, in this case the General Medical Council (GMC), is already involved and has the power to remove doctors from the medical register".
The GMC released its own statement a day later on 5 September, confirming it was soon to be in receipt of all evidence gathered by the CPS on the matter. The Chief Executive of the GMC, Niall Dickson, said:
‘These are serious allegations, which is why both of the doctors concerned have had restrictions placed on their practice while investigations take place. It would not be appropriate to comment on individual cases where nothing has been proved and the investigations are on-going.
‘Our role, as laid down by Parliament, is not to punish doctors but to protect the public and so any action we may take against a doctor should not be seen as a substitute for action by other authorities.’
Case law, and in particular the Court of Appeal's decision in Redgrave v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2003] ECWA Civ 4, has established that the character and purpose of criminal and disciplinary proceedings are different, and there is therefore no automatic bar to a regulator bringing disciplinary charges where criminal charges have been rejected, even where the evidence is identical.
Whether, as the GMC's statement highlights, the regulatory arena is the appropriate forum for such matters to be considered, is however a different matter, and an issue which will no doubt be considered further in the media spotlight in the event that the GMC does bring charges to hearing against the individuals concerned.
Secret filming by The Daily Telegraph showed medical professionals apparently readily agreeing to organise abortions on the basis that the mother was rejecting the gender of her baby. Terminating a pregnancy because of foetal gender is not one of the reasons provided in section 1(1) of The Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by section 37 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) which sets out the circumstances in which an abortion may be performed.
The CPS found that there was sufficient evidence to bring forward the prosecutions of the attempted crimes, but concluded that it was not in the public interest to do so, stating that " One highly relevant factor in this regard is that the responsible professional body, in this case the General Medical Council (GMC), is already involved and has the power to remove doctors from the medical register".
The GMC released its own statement a day later on 5 September, confirming it was soon to be in receipt of all evidence gathered by the CPS on the matter. The Chief Executive of the GMC, Niall Dickson, said:
‘These are serious allegations, which is why both of the doctors concerned have had restrictions placed on their practice while investigations take place. It would not be appropriate to comment on individual cases where nothing has been proved and the investigations are on-going.
‘Our role, as laid down by Parliament, is not to punish doctors but to protect the public and so any action we may take against a doctor should not be seen as a substitute for action by other authorities.’
Case law, and in particular the Court of Appeal's decision in Redgrave v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2003] ECWA Civ 4, has established that the character and purpose of criminal and disciplinary proceedings are different, and there is therefore no automatic bar to a regulator bringing disciplinary charges where criminal charges have been rejected, even where the evidence is identical.
Whether, as the GMC's statement highlights, the regulatory arena is the appropriate forum for such matters to be considered, is however a different matter, and an issue which will no doubt be considered further in the media spotlight in the event that the GMC does bring charges to hearing against the individuals concerned.