18 May 2007

Media Release

Right To Life Mandamus

Right to Life New Zealand filed a mandamus in the High Court in Wellington in May 2005 against the Abortion Supervisory Committee for its alleged failure to fulfil its statutory duties. These duties included the failure of the Committee to ensure that the human rights of unborn children received the full protection of the law, that certifying consultants were held accountable for the lawfulness of the abortions that they authorised and to stop abortion on demand.
.
Counsel for the Crown representing the Abortion Supervisory Committee presented their submissions on their Interlocutory Application for review of the decision of Associate Judge Gendall given in the High Court on 21 December 2006. Justice Young presided over this one day hearing in Chambers on the 17 May in the High Court in Wellington.

Associate Judge Gendall had previously rejected the petition of the Crown to have the evidence of six women who had an abortion struck out as irrelevant and inadmissible. The Judge also rejected the request of the Crown to lift the order for name suppression previously granted by Justice Wild in 2005. Judge Gendall had also rejected the petition of the Crown to strike out the expert evidence of a consulting specialist Psychiatrist as being irrelevant and inadmissible.

The Counsel for Right to Life, Peter McKenzie QC, argued that the evidence of the six courageous women demonstrated the failures of the Committee that were alleged by the plaintiff. Continued name suppression was sought as it was imperative to protect the privacy of the women who were giving important evidence on the way they were treated by abortion counsellors and certifying consultants and the psychological trauma that they had experienced at the loss of their unborn children through abortion. There was no public good to be served by making their names public. The expert evidence of a consulting specialist Psychiatrist that there were no psychiatric indications for abortion was critical to challenging the 98% of abortions that are authorised each year on mental health grounds.

Justice Young informed the litigants that he would be presiding over future proceedings in this Mandamus and that it was his wish to bring these proceedings to a speedy conclusion. He acknowledged that these proceedings were very important and of considerable public interest. The Court acceded to the request of counsel for Right to Life to present a further affidavit to the Court on the development of the unborn child and its status as a human being endowed at conception with an inalienable right to life. Justice Young reserved his judgment and indicated that it was his intention to present his judgment in three weeks.

ends

© Scoop Media