Abortion available "essentially on demand"

Sarah Catt's case is one a judge is unlikely to hear often. After claiming to have only discovered her pregnancy after the 24 week cut off point for legal abortion, she purchased drugs from abroad and self-injected to bring on an abortion herself. She then hid the foetus, thought at the time to have been just one week from term - because she believed the baby was that of her lover, not her husband. After a turbulent history of past pregnancies including an adoption, Sarah Clatt now faces an 8 year prison sentence for what the judge at Leeds Crown Court called an offence "between manslaughter and murder on the criminal scale", she was sentenced on the 17^th of September 2012.

A difficult case, and whether or not the Judge, The Hon Mr Jeremy Cook, was too harsh or too lenient in his sentence will undoubtedly be debated. But what should well warrant just as much debate are the comments the Judge made following sentencing to the defendant herself- “There is no mitigation available by reference to the Abortion Act, whatever view one takes of its provisions which are, wrongly, liberally construed in practice so as to make abortion available essentially on demand prior to 24 weeks with the approval of registered medical practitioners.”

“Wrongly, liberally construed in practice...” – with these few words the Judge has hijacked the case to voice his own opinions on abortion. This was not a trial questioning abortion law, and to voice his opinion during the trial should be seen as a gross abuse of his position. He knew the case would be widely reported, and he's used it as a platform.

Justice Cooke is a Christian, and a member of the Lawyer's Christian Fellowship. He was in fact one of the organisation's vice presidents until 2010. These previously known beliefs likely go a long way to explaining his views on abortion. Some may ask if membership of such an organisation meant it was inappropriate for him to act as Judge in this case, but holding such views should not impact on someone's ability to do their job. Justice Cooke, just as any other person of religious belief, had the choice to leave his own beliefs outside the courtroom and act in a professional manner. He failed to do so, and it is that which should give concern over his ability as a Judge in such a case. The problem is not that Justice Cooke is a Christian, but that he used the platform his position gave him to express his own beliefs, Christian or otherwise.

Had he voiced this opinion in a private capacity, Justice Cooke would have had every right to do so. But the fact he aired those opinions in a professional capacity is not only highly unprofessional but also sends an awful message to women seeking abortions. He was in essence saying that he, a part of the establishment, a representative of the establishment, thinks that what they are doing is wrong – and this will have an effect on women in this vulnerable position. To use the phrase “essentially on demand” makes it sound as though an abortion is something you get on a whim, something that women are demanding unfairly. If his comments were made in private they would be rightly widely damned, but that they were made in such a position gives them a legitimacy he did not have the right to award them. Justice Cooke should face recourse for his abuse of power, but he will not – and this is a failing of the current legal system.