 |
answer text |
<p>In accordance with the two stage test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors,
the CPS carefully considered the evidence submitted by the private prosecutor both
on its own and in addition to the material already in its possession from the earlier
decision. In both cases the CPS concluded that there was no realistic prospect of
conviction for the charge selected by the private prosecutor.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
</p><p>In addition the CPS considered whether both sets evidence taken together might
be sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for <strong><em>any</em></strong>
abortion offence. It was concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute
an offence of using poison, instruments or any other means with intent to procure
an abortion but that this was very finely balanced. It further concluded that the
public interest considerations in not pursuing a prosecution outweighed those in favour
for the same reasons as in 2013, most importantly the lack of professional guidance
on how doctors should approach comparative risk assessments.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
</p><p>The full reasons for the decision are available on the Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) website: <a href="http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_decision_to_stop_private_prosecutions_of_doctors_charged_with_abortion_offences/"
target="_blank">http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_decision_to_stop_private_prosecutions_of_doctors_charged_with_abortion_offences/</a></p><p>
</p>
|
|
