Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 9 Hansard (21 August) . . Page.. 2561 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

structures which underpin the present balance of the law in the territory. The consequences of doing so are not necessarily what you might expect them to be.

I have read already section 44 of the Crimes Act. What does that section mean? Supporters of abortion say that it means that women who seek an abortion or who have an abortion can be prosecuted for that act. Putting to one side for a moment the fact that in living memory no woman has been prosecuted in that way-indeed, I am yet to hear any contradiction to the argument that never has a woman been prosecuted in that way-what does the section say?

It does not say that seeking an abortion or presenting at an abortion clinic or at a hospital to obtain an abortion is illegal. It refers to a woman who administers to herself any drug or noxious thing or uses any instrument or other means. That is, it means that the self-administration of abortion is illegal.

The argument has been put repeatedly in the course of today's debate that it is a crime for a woman to seek an abortion. I do not believe that that is the case. I am not sure that members would have appreciated the advice which was tabled earlier today by Mrs Dunne.

Mrs Dunne: It has not been tabled yet. I was not allowed to table it.

MR HUMPHRIES: I see. It was not tabled. I seek leave to table it.

Leave granted.

MR HUMPHRIES: I present the following paper:

Crimes Act-Advice by James Bogle, Hallewell Simpson Hardacre, Solicitors, London in relation to proposed amendments to the Crimes Act 1900.

Mr Bogle is a barrister in Britain who has interpreted laws in Australia and in Britain which are similar in nature. I will let members look at that for themselves. He particularly addresses the meaning of section 44 of the Crimes Act ACT. I quote from his advice:

The plain meaning of the words of the statute are a sufficient aid to construction of the meaning of the statute in answering the question put, in the first instance.

The plain meaning of the words of section 44 is that this section penalises a pregnant woman who intends to procure her own miscarriage. That section does not penalise her for attending before another person who then procures her miscarriage.

Section 45 penalises a person who has the intent to procure a miscarriage and then administers a drug, causes it to be taken by the woman or uses any instrument. Plainly this is intended to penalise a third party procurer, not just the woman who procures her own miscarriage.

In my opinion, however, this section does not directly penalise a woman who attends upon a third party for the purpose of having her miscarriage procured by him or her.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .