R v Carla Foster ~ Appeal on Sentence

A previous post looked at the tragic case of R v Carla Foster who, in June 2023, was sentenced to 28 months imprisonment for administering poison with intent to procure a miscarriage - (Offences Against the Person Act 1861 section 58). 

Although this was plainly a serious offence, there were a number of exceptional features. Whilst a sentence of imprisonment was inevitable, the question was whether the term could be low enough to enable the imprisonment to be suspended but with requirements aimed at rehabilitation.

The sentencing judge, Mr Justice Pepperall, considered that he was unable to reduce the sentence below 28 months. This could not be suspended because it exceeded 2 years.

On appeal, the sentence was reduced to 14 months imprisonment to be suspended for 18 months from the date when she was first sentenced. There is also a rehabilitation requirement of up to 50 days to give her the opportunity to engage in various interventions designed to assist her, including counselling.

The Court of Appeal's summary judgment was published on 19 July and full reasons for the decision will be handed down in due course.

Earlier post - Law and Lawyers: R v Carla Foster - 28 months imprisonment - abortion (obiterj.blogspot.com)

Appeal - Summary of the court's judgment - R -v Carla Foster (judiciary.uk)

Addendum 22 October 2023:

The Court of Appeal's full judgment is at  R -v- Foster (judiciary.uk). It can be seen - (para 51-53) - that the court did not take too kindly to a lengthy letter sent to the trial judge by eminent medical professionals  who are listed at para 51.  In summary, the letter  said -

"that the provision of a remote consultation care abortion pathway (or telemedicine) had been one of the single greatest advances in the provision of abortion care, since abortion was legalised in 1967, delivering significant medical advantages and improving access to abortion for the most vulnerable girls and women and significantly reducing the numbers of women seeking illicit sources of abortion medication. The authors said they were fearful that a custodial sentence for Ms Foster would risk deterring the most desperate and vulnerable from accessing regulated healthcare. They also asked the court to consider anonymising Ms Foster’s case, given the stigma attached to abortion care and pleaded for leniency for Ms Foster. They asked too for an opportunity to address the court on sentence."

The Court of Appeal endorsed the trial judge's response to the letter. "

"He was right to say that this form of special pleading was inappropriate. The same would have true of a letter from a group campaigning for more restrictive laws on abortion, calling for a deterrent sentence in this case and asking for an opportunity to address the court too."

The judgment continues - "It is disappointing and concerning that the authors, all eminent in their own professional fields, did not understand this. Our democratic society of course allows for the open expression of different views on the merits of any sentence that is passed, and we do not doubt that the authors of the letter have the serious concerns to which they refer; but the duty of the independent judiciary, in accordance with their judicial oath, is to sentence according to the law and to apply the law to the facts of the individual case before them, rather than be swayed by the views of special interest groups, however eminent and well-intentioned they may be."