That’s the good news from Cairns.
The challenge now is to not relapse into a false sense of security, not let the Queensland government off the hook, and to get the law repealed.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
So, jury nullification, or did they use the excuse in the legal definition of “noxious”? We’ll never know. But its a good result.
And hopefully now the legislature will do what it should have done in the first place, and reform the law.
Can we lift the boycott now?
I think so.
Thank goodness. Gold Coast Worlds, here I come!
Is the Princess of Political Pugnacity, aka the Premier, expected to make a comment?
@Idiot/Savant:
Am I alone in thinking that the ALP in Australia is no longer left wing or progressive in any sense of those words?
\(^_^)/ let’s hope this is the last time we see this type of case in court.
Am I alone in thinking that the ALP in Australia is no longer left wing or progressive in any sense of those words?
Marks, 1978 rang. It wants its disappointment back.
Wonderful news.
That’s a fascinating detail.
Is this really an accurate interpretation of the Qld law?
Jury nullification did not occur if that is what the judge directed.
I like the prosecution’s final reminder to the jury, “we are in a court of law, not of public morals.”
Yep, that’s surely right…
Anna: that’s what I was thinking of, though the story I’d seen wasn’t quite so specific (leaving off “rather than the foetus”). And if that’s the direction, then its hard to see how the verdict could have been anything other than acquittal.
That’s a relief.
But will the Bligh Government make an effort to change the law?
Doesn’t make up for all the stress over a protracted time.
Nasty stuff and no sign of change, whilst the major parties remain under the sway of moralist conservatives.
Good to see that the judge could evidently see it for the debacle it was, by the look of it.
From ABC on line news:
Seems the judge wasn’t alone in seeing it as a debacle. if it weren’t real, the whole case would be worthy of A P Herbert.
The fact the case made it to trial was very weird, given the squillions of times it has been ignored.
Nonetheless, if the law is to blame for this exception to common sense ( as it obviously is) , i cannot see how it can be left in place unchanged now.
Is it possible that the govt let these kids be scapegoated out in order to gain social momentum to change it without too much political difficulty, on the back of community outcry?
Possible, but highly unlikely. See this from New Matilda last year:
And this from Tuesday’s SMH:
It would appear that Judge Everson’s directions on the matter of “noxious” legalise drug induced abortions in Qld.
However, Brennan might have been prosecuted under Section 226 because there is no mention of “noxious” in that section.
Will the Right to Lifers demand an amendment to this legislation?
Is the Queensland government appealing…?
I think the only thing noxious or poisonous in this case was the Bligh Government.
Bligh claimed in that same ABC article above that there aren’t the numbers in the House to change the law, which may well be true, but why not bring it to the floor, so that the Edwardian numbskulls who oppose the legalization of abortion can put their names on the record and be named and shamed?
@19
unappealing
http://www.cairns.com.au/article/2010/10/14/130685_local-news.html
If this is Qld law (I’m gobsmacked–WTF etc) then what it means is that a “mistake of fact” (ordinarily a highly significant mitigating submission by lawyers at sentence eg on a guilty plea) by a woman who believes she is pregnant (when she is not), who then takes RU486 to be on the safe side: exposes herself to legal liability as if she was pregnant.
The effect of this law, is to say that a woman is deemed to be pregnant upon taking say RU486, and criminalises the desire of not wanting to be pregnant.
The mens rea (guilty mind) element of the offence is not wanting to be pregnant. The actus reus (guilty act) could be (apart from RU486) taking a quack remedy of half a pound of epsom salts.
I therefore dub this law:
Thoroughly Fucked (Deemed To Be Barefoot and Knocked Up) Women’s Pregnancy Anti Wishful Thinking Act Qld 2010 (BCE)
Is it just me, or does the QLD ALP needs a walloping great boot up the arse? Those “Buy QR shares” ads on Vic telly are making me puke.
QLD: vote Green.
No, it’s unappealing.
Not according to Judge Everson, PK.
According to his direction, if the RU486 is deemed not to be “noxious” to the woman to whom it is administered, then no criminal act has been committed, whether the woman is pregnant, or not.
Well no, Adrian, but the Queensland Opposition is even less appealing.
Of the acquittal,though? No, they are not appealing. It is a jury acquittal. There is no appeal against that.
Which is as it should be.
Peter, it’s a CE Act, not a BCE Act, and it goes back about a hundred years so it’s not a 2010 Act, even if the prosecution of it suits 2010 BCE.
Still, I’m sure you’ll have admired the judge’s Menhennitt inspired charge to the jury. With those instructions they were bound to acquit.
No, he’s home free. Under s 226 he’d only be guilty if he supplied it knowng it is intended to be unlawfully used.
Since it isn’t noxious to the woman who takes it, by the logic of the judge’s instructions to the jury, it is not unlawful to use it.
Noxious substance ???
Medical termination (using substances such as RU486) requires medical supervision and clearly Tegan and Sergie went the wrong way about obtaining and using it.
But as of 2006 it is legal in Australia (albeit apparently difficult for doctors to obtain/provide).
Women friends in Europe tell me its the treatment of choice over there based on it being less invasive than surgical intervention. Research backs up its safety and efficiency when correctly used. It might be new to Oz but elsewhere it is considered a great advance in termination technology.
We’re way behind here and referring to a legal medication as noxious – and a court case that villifies its use – they’re hardly steps forward.
Go Oz !!
The wording of the Queensland Criminal Code 1899 on abortion is a little peculiar:
I’m not sure what the word “unlawfully” is doing in those two sections: if it’s not redundant (in that the Criminal Code makes attempting to procure an abortion unlawful) then there must be conditions (not specified in the Act) which make it lawful to procure an abortion. In short it’s a badly worded law and, therefore, a bad law.
The sort of bad law that makes hard cases (HT to A P Herbert).
Just wondering, is the bit about whether she is NOT with child a reference to contraception per se?
Possibly a reference to “morning after” methods (folk remedies and medical) of preventing a pregnancy. Definitely has a hint of “no fornication without procreation” about it.
@19
Not at all appealing….
Ba-da-boom-tish!
I’m here all week – tip your waitperson!
Katz @ 26 re:
It would appear the law applicable to the defendant lady in question (not what I thought it was having not read your quote) is:
The Judges direction admirable as it was, IMO sits uneasily with “or uses any other means, thing etc”(ie non noxious).
However, it could be that the indictment said only “administer(ed) to herself a poison or other noxious thing” to wit RU486, in which case the direction is spot on, and the prosecution may have sabotaged (deliberately?) their own case by not including in the alternative “or uses any other means, thing etc” ie RU486
Without a copy of the indictment (and transcript of proceedings), it’s hard to work out whether the prosecution stuffed up or if they didn’t, that the Judge’s statutory interpretation ignored the “other means/thing”
In any event the result was good.
That appears to be a very reasonable presumption, PK.
Has the DPP gone Gandhian?
Whatever, justice is now a greater lottery than before.