In recent years, the United Kingdom has witnessed a series of legal confrontations involving individuals arrested or prosecuted for engaging in silent prayer near abortion clinics. These incidents have ignited a contentious debate over the balance between safeguarding access to abortion services and upholding fundamental freedoms such as speech and thought.​

Public Spaces Protection Orders and Buffer Zones

Central to these cases are Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs), legal instruments under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. PSPOs empower local authorities to prohibit specific activities within designated areas to prevent public nuisance. In the context of abortion clinics, PSPOs have been employed to establish buffer zones, typically extending 150 meters from clinic entrances, aiming to shield patients and staff from potential harassment or intimidation. ​

Notable Cases of Arrests for Silent Prayer

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, a prominent pro-life activist, was arrested twice in Birmingham for silently praying near an abortion facility within a buffer zone. In both instances, she was neither displaying signs nor vocalizing her beliefs. Following legal proceedings, Vaughan-Spruce was acquitted of all charges. Subsequently, she received a £13,000 settlement from West Midlands Police, acknowledging the violation of her rights. Expressing her concerns, Vaughan-Spruce stated, “Silent prayer is not a crime. Nobody should be arrested merely for the thoughts they have in their heads.” ​

Livia Tossici-Bolt

In Bournemouth, Livia Tossici-Bolt, a 64-year-old retired medical scientist and leader of a local branch of 40 Days for Life, was found guilty of breaching a buffer zone by holding a sign that read, “Here to talk, if you want.” Despite asserting that her intention was to offer consensual conversation, the court ruled that her actions violated the PSPO. She received a conditional discharge and was ordered to pay £20,000 in legal costs. The case attracted international attention, with U.S. Vice President JD Vance criticizing the verdict as a threat to free expression. ​

Adam Smith-Connor

Similarly, Adam Smith-Connor, a British Army veteran, was prosecuted for silently praying near an abortion clinic in Bournemouth. He was convicted of violating the buffer zone established by a PSPO and received a conditional discharge along with an order to pay legal costs. Smith-Connor’s case has been highlighted by international figures as indicative of potential overreach in restricting peaceful expression. ​

Legal and Ethical Implications

These cases underscore a complex intersection of legal and ethical considerations. Proponents of buffer zones argue that they are essential to protect individuals seeking abortion services from potential harassment and to ensure unimpeded access to healthcare. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) reported over 500 incidents of harassment prior to the implementation of such zones, emphasizing their necessity. ​

Conversely, critics contend that the enforcement of PSPOs in these contexts infringes upon civil liberties, particularly the rights to freedom of speech and thought. They argue that activities such as silent prayer, which do not involve overt acts of protest or obstruction, should not be criminalized. This perspective raises concerns about the potential for “thought crimes,” wherein individuals are penalized for their internal contemplations rather than any demonstrable actions.​

International Reactions and Diplomatic Tensions

The enforcement of buffer zones and the subsequent arrests have elicited reactions beyond the UK’s borders. Notably, U.S. Vice President JD Vance has publicly criticized these actions, suggesting they represent a curtailment of fundamental freedoms. Such international scrutiny has introduced diplomatic complexities, with some viewing the critiques as external interference in domestic legal matters. ​

The arrests and legal actions taken against individuals for silently praying near UK abortion clinics have ignited a multifaceted debate. While the intention behind buffer zones is to protect the rights and well-being of those seeking medical services, the application of these measures has raised significant questions about the boundaries of free expression and the potential for governmental overreach. As legal challenges continue and international attention persists, the UK faces the ongoing task of balancing the protection of healthcare access with the preservation of civil liberties.​

For more stories and insights, visit It’s On

Instagram:@itson.ie

TikTok videos and information:@itson.ie