Veronica Connolly Is a Divorced Wheelchair Bound Catholic Grand

University of Ljubljana Faculty of Social Sciences

INTERMEDIATE REPORT ON VERONICA CONNOLLY, HER STORY AND HER JUDGEMENT

Avtorica: Ana Anđelič 3.letnik, mednarodni odnosi (št. indeksa 21040061)

Mentorica: pred. mag. Mojca Jarc

Ljubljana, 12. 11. 2007

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………… 3 Central part ………………………………………………………………………….…. 4-6 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………. 7 Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………….. 8

2 1. INTRODUCTION

My part of this collective project was to find articles about Veronica Connolly in greater detail about her case, about her story and about her judgement. I used resources i found on the internet. There were plenty of them but they were repeating the same things, so i searched through private journals and went through the Court decisions as well. And here is her story.

3 2. CENTRAL PART

Veronica Connolly is a divorced wheelchair bound Catholic grandmother, who has two daughters and three grandchildren. She failed in a High Court for sending pictures of aborted fetuses to her local pharmacists.

Mrs Connolly is also a volunteer for the pro-life group named UK LifeLeague and she believes that abortion is a form of murder and that an unborn baby is a child of God.

In 2005 the Government started to allow pharmacists to sell the morning-after pill and Mrs Connolly phoned her local pharmacists to ask them if they were selling it too and if they were, whether she could send them pro-life informations.

Between January and March 2005 she sent aborted fetus pictures to Moss pharmacy, Olton pharmacy and Moss pharmacy (Solihull). The letters mostly appeared to have been opened by a manager, supervisor or head pharmacists, but one has been opened by their member of staff whose relative had given birth to a still-born child. This pharmacy called the police.

In October 2005, she was conditionally charged by Solihull Magistrates and ordered to pay legal costs.

Later she took her case to two judges, Lord Justice Dyson and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton, at London`s High Court, bearing in mind her religious rights and freedom of speech were unconsidered. Sadly they agreed she had no right to cause the distress and to make the members of the public view the pictures.

Veronica Connolly admitted sending the aborted fetus pictures but she denied they were grossly offensive. She was also convicted of three offenses under the Malicious Communications Act 1988.

The judges handed down their judgment that pictures which are expression of her anti- abortion beliefs should have been sent to people, who have the opportunity to change abortion law or at least influence it and not to the members of the public, even if they are somehow involved in such law.

4 Her lawyer Paul Diamond told Lord Justice Dyson and Mr Justice Stanley Burnton that his case raises substantial issues of law under articles 9 and 10 and that Mrs Connolly did not mean to cause distress or anxiety but to educate and inform people about consequences of abortion because there were about 200,000 abortions a year.

Mrs Connolly`s case rests on the interpretation of article 9 and 10 of the European Convention on human rights.

Article 9 provides:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others.

Article 10 provides:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

______Article 9 and 10 of the European Convention on human rights, dostopen na medmrežju, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/237.html (10. 11. 2007)

5 Mrs Connolly said that every woman that takes the morning-after pill is directly involved in the process of abortion and she has the right to know the consequences. She thinks every individual's democratic right is to be able to obtain full information on which she can make an informed decision and later make an application for a change in the law. She told that this rulling creates a new political class and brings a new censorship.

6 3. CONCLUSION

In my opinion she does have the right to send the photos but the people who receive them have the right to question her actions too. Both have excercised a right of their own and the Court had ruled which of the rights are socially acceptable. In this case it was seen as socially unacceptable to send pictures of aborted fetuses.

I think the morning-after pill is not an abortion, because the woman who takes it may not even become pregnant. With this pill we have the ability to stop a possible pregnancy at the earliest stage because the consequences of not doing it could be much worse. Sadly there are far too many irresponsible people out there and the morning-after pill at least stops some of the potential unwanted children. There is no difference in taking the morning-after pill and the contraceptive pill itself because they both prevent pregnancy.

7 4. BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Connolly v. Director of Public Prosecutions, The High Court of Justice, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/237.html

 Ertfelt, Steven British Pro-Life Womena Who Sent Abortion Pics Loses Court Case. Lifenews.com, http://www.lifenews.com/int185.html

 This is london, Abortion pictures woman seeks human rights rulin, http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23382809-details/abortion%20pictures %20woman%20seeks20%human20%rights20%ruling/article.do

 BBC 2007 Rights case over foetus pictures. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6291653.stm

 Lcf, Appeal to Lords after High Court give life decision, http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp? page=Appeal+to+Lords+after+High+Court+give+life+decision

 European Convention on Human Rights, http://www.ccfon.org/latest.php?id=40