UK abortion law remains unsettled, and subject to on‐going controversy and reform. This article offers a comprehensive critique of all reforms implemented or proposed since 2016. It examines reforms proposed in both Houses of Parliament and contextualises them within a public law analysis, showing both that the complex parliamentary processes relating to Private Members’ Bills have frustrated reform attempts, and that these attempts have been contradictory in their aims between the two Houses. Secondly, it examines the unique positions of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to show the extent to which devolutionary settlements have influenced both reforms and executive involvement. Finally, it examines the potential impact of the courts on abortion law following Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's Application for Judicial Review, showing that the Supreme Court's reframing of the debate in human rights terms is likely to affect abortion law, not only in Northern Ireland, but in the whole of the UK.

No abstract

In 2017, the plight of a desperately ill British baby captured attention around the world. Charlie Gard had been born with a severe mitochondrial condition that progressively caused irreversible brain damage and left him unable to hear, move or breathe independently. His doctors considered that this damage was irreversible and would soon be fatal. In consequence, his medical team at Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GOSH) concluded that it would be in Charlie's best interests for life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn to allow him to have a peaceful and dignified death. Charlie's devoted parents disagreed. They had scoured the world to find a treatment that might improve his condition and had found hope in nucleoside bypass therapy. This experimental treatment, as yet untested on people or even animals with Charlie's condition, was offered by a specialist in the USA who considered that there was a 'theoretical possibility' that it may be of benefit to Charlie. Having raised the costs through crowdfunding, the parents intended to remove Charlie to the USA to start treatment. Unable to resolve the disagreement with the parents, GOSH applied to the court for a declaration that that it was lawful, and in Charlie's best interests, for him not to be given nucleoside therapy and for ventilation to be withdrawn. The ensuing court proceedings took place in the intense glare of media attention and frenzied debate on social media. The parents received support from around the world, including from the Pope and from the President of the USA. Nonetheless, at every stage of the judicial process 2 the courts' assessment of Charlie's best interests accorded with that of his doctors. Charlie's life-support was withdrawn just one week before his first birthday.To many observers the courts' decisions in Gard were difficult to comprehend. Although the proposed treatment was experimental in nature, many felt that it was wrong for the courts to take that chance from Charlie and cruel to thwart his parents' remaining hope. 3 More fundamentally, to others it was not clear why the courts were involved at all. 4 The parents were undoubtedly devoted to their son and acting from a loving and sincere desire to find the best treatment for him. This was not a case in which the state needed to step in to remove a child from abusive or neglectful parents who had forfeited their right to make decisions for their 1 This article was first published as Chapter 3 in I. Goold, J. Herring and C. Auckland (eds) Parental Rights, Best Interests and Significant Harms: Medial Decision-Making on Behalf of Children Post-Great Ormond Street Hospital v Gard (2019, Hart). It is reprinted here, with minor modifications, by kind permission of Hart Publishing. 2 The procedural history of the case is complex and collectively this article refers to the case as Gard. The High Court granted the declarations sought by GOSH: Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust v Yates & Gard [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam). This decision was upheld...

This is the first of two chapters discussing child protection issues—what is often called the public law concerning children. Chapter 17 begins with a consideration of the basic dilemmas of child protection followed by an overview of the development of local authority powers. It explains the current basic legal framework and provisions for local authorities to provide services for families; specific duties and powers; accommodating children in need; and secure accommodation. The chapter ends by focusing on the local authorities’ investigative powers and duties. It covers the general duty of investigation under s 47 of the Children Act 1989; co-operating with other agencies to discharge investigative duties; emergency protection orders; child assessment orders; and police protection.

The UK formally left the European Union (EU) on 31 January 2020, and entered a transition period until 31 December 2020 (“IP Completion Day”). Thereafter, EU law was no longer binding on the UK as an international source of law, and was replaced by a domestic equivalent, known as “retained EU law”. One of the questions which arose prior to IP Completion Day was how to correct retained EU law in advance of it taking effect, so that it would operate effectively and avoid a so-called “cliff-edge scenario”. Most of these corrections were made using delegated legislation by the UK Government. This was typically done with the consent of the devolved administrations where retained EU law included policy areas within the devolved competences of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, new processes were introduced to provide the Scottish Parliament with an opportunity to approve such consent being given by the Scottish Government. The purpose of this article is to provide new analysis of the impact of this process and its significance for Scots law and Scottish parliamentary scrutiny, as well as to consider the extent to which the challenges observed with that process have been addressed by the successor process which has been in place since IP Completion Day.