LAW

Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Evans v. Amicus Healthcare Ltd (2004)
Core Principle
  • Withdrawal of Consent: If one member of a couple undergoing IVF treatment withdraws consent to the storage or use of embryos, it becomes unlawful to continue storing or using those embryos.
Facts of the Case
  • IVF Treatment & Embryo Storage: Two couples underwent IVF treatment and stored the resulting frozen embryos.
  • Relationship Breakdown & Consent Withdrawal: The couples separated, and the men withdrew their consent for the use/storage of the embryos.
  • Woman's Argument: One woman argued that her ex-partner had agreed the embryos would always be available to her and that she had relied on this agreement to her detriment. She tried to use the principle of equitable estoppel (legal principle preventing someone from going back on a promise).
High Court Decision
  • "Treatment Together" Consent: The High Court ruled that the men's initial consent was specifically for "treatment together" as a couple and didn't extend to the sole use of the embryos by the women after the relationship ended.
  • Unconditional Right to Withdraw Consent: The court emphasized that Schedule 3, para 4(1) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) 1990 grants either party an unconditional right to withdraw consent at any time.
  • Compatibility with Human Rights: This provision of the HFEA 1990 was found to be compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private and family life), as per Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998.
Court of Appeal Decision
  • Upheld the Judgment: The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court's decision.
  • HFEA Policy Clarity: The court emphasized that the policy of the HFEA 1990 is clear on this issue. The legislation prioritizes the right of an individual to withdraw consent, even if it prevents the other party from using the embryos.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- R (A Child) (Contact: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) (No 2) (2003)
Key Issue:
Determination of legal fatherhood in IVF using donor sperm when the couple separates between embryo creation and implantation. Specifically, the interpretation of "being treated" together under Section 28(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) 1990.
Facts:
  • Initial Treatment: F and M, an unmarried couple, underwent IVF treatment. M's eggs were fertilized with donor sperm.
  • Frozen Embryos: The first embryo implantation failed; remaining embryos were frozen.
  • Relationship Breakdown: F and M separated. M entered a new relationship.
  • Subsequent Implantation: M, without informing the clinic of her changed circumstances, had a successful embryo implantation using the frozen embryos.
  • Paternity Claim: F sought a declaration under s 28(3) HFEA 1990 to be recognized as the legal father, arguing the second implantation was part of the original treatment course.
  • First Instance Decision: The judge initially granted F's order.
Decision (Court of Appeal):
  • Appeal Allowed: The Court of Appeal overturned the initial decision, ruling against F.
  • Critical Time: The crucial point for determining legal fatherhood is the time of implantation, not embryo creation.
  • "Being Treated" Requirement: At the time of the successful implantation, F was not being treated with M. The requirement of being treated together at the time of implantation was not met.
  • Embryo Storage: Emphasized the potential for long-term embryo storage (up to 10 years). Therefore, the relationship status at implantation is paramount.
HFEA 1990, Section 28(3) Breakdown:
This section applies when the male partner is unmarried to the woman and seeks to be recognized as the legal father in cases of donor sperm IVF. It stipulates that:
  • Subsection (2) doesn't apply: This refers to situations where a man is automatically considered the father.
  • Treatment Provided: The embryo (or sperm/eggs in artificial insemination) was placed in the woman as part of treatment services provided for her and a man together by a licensed clinic (s.28(3)(a)).
  • Donor Sperm Used: The embryo was created using donor sperm (s.28(3)(b)).
  • Legal Fatherhood: If the above conditions are met, "that man" (the partner being treated with the woman) shall be treated as the father of the child. Crucially, he must be undergoing treatment together with the woman.
Key Takeaways:
  • Time of Implantation Matters: Legal fatherhood under s 28(3) HFEA 1990 is determined by the circumstances at the time of embryo implantation, not at the time of embryo creation or the start of the initial treatment.
  • "Being Treated Together": The male partner must be "treated...together" with the woman at the time of implantation to be recognized as the legal father when donor sperm is used and they are unmarried.
  • Implications of Embryo Storage: The possibility of long-term embryo storage reinforces the importance of the relationship status at the time of implantation as the defining factor for legal paternity.
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law- Re B (Minors) (Parentage) (1996)
Core Principle: Establishes legal parentage for children conceived via assisted reproduction (specifically IVF) when the parents are unmarried. The key is consent of the biological father to the treatment.
Facts:
  • Unmarried couple underwent IVF treatment.
  • Woman conceived after the relationship ended.
  • Woman sought financial support from the man.
  • Man questioned his legal fatherhood.
Legal Question: Is the biological father the legal father in this specific scenario?
Decision/Holding: The court ruled that the man was the legal father.
Reasoning (Key Legal Principles):
  • HFEA 1990, Schedule 3: This legislation is the foundation of the decision.
  • Valid Consent: If the biological father gives valid consent to the use of his sperm in assisted reproduction, he is considered the legal father.
  • Implied Consent: If a man receives treatment services as part of a couple with the woman, his consent is implied unless he expressly withdraws it.
In Simple Terms:
If an unmarried man goes through IVF treatment with a woman, the law assumes he consents to being the legal father of any child born from that treatment, unless he specifically says he doesn't want to be.
Key Takeaways/Implications:
  • Protection for Children: Ensures clarity regarding parental responsibility and financial support, even when relationships dissolve after conception.
  • Burden on Father: Places the onus on the biological father to explicitly withdraw consent during the treatment process if he doesn't wish to be legally recognized as the father.
  • Focus on Initial Intent: The father's intention at the time of the treatment is paramount. The subsequent breakdown of the relationship is not relevant to the determination of legal parentage.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R (John Smeaton on Behalf of SPUC) v Secretary of State for Health (2002)
Core Issue
  • Legality of post-coital contraception (morning-after pill) preventing implantation.
    • Applicant (SPUC) argued it was a criminal offense.
    • Specifically, a violation of Section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Facts of the Case
  • John Smeaton (acting for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children - SPUC) filed for judicial review.
  • SPUC sought a declaration that providing the "morning-after pill" (post-coital contraception) constituted a criminal offence.
Court Decision
  • High Court refused the declaration.
  • The court's rationale hinged on the definition of "miscarriage."
  • Key point: The court ruled that pregnancy ("carriage") does not begin until implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus.
  • Therefore, contraception that prevents implantation does not fall under the purview of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 because no pregnancy had yet occurred.
Key Takeaways
  • This case establishes that, under UK law, preventing implantation of a fertilized egg via post-coital contraception is not considered an unlawful abortion.
  • The definition of pregnancy (specifically when it begins) is crucial. The court determined that pregnancy begins upon implantation, not fertilization.
  • The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 does not apply to interventions taken before implantation.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority ex p Blood (1997)
Core Principle
  • Gametes (sperm and eggs) and embryos can only be stored and used with the donor's explicit consent.
Facts of the Case
  • Mr. Blood's Situation: Sperm was extracted from Mr. Blood while he was in a coma shortly before his death and stored.
  • Mrs. Blood's Request: After Mr. Blood's death, Mrs. Blood wanted to use his sperm to become pregnant.
  • HFEA's Refusal: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) denied permission because Mr. Blood had not given written consent for his sperm to be stored and used after his death.
  • Judicial Review: Mrs. Blood sought a judicial review of the HFEA's decision.
Court Decision
  • Unlawful Storage: The Court of Appeal agreed that storing the sperm without written consent was unlawful.
  • HFEA's Correct Decision: The HFEA was right to refuse permission for Mrs. Blood to use the sperm in the UK.
Key Points and Implications
  • Written Consent is Mandatory: Schedule 3 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) 1990 requires written consent for gamete storage and usage.
  • Treatment Abroad: The Court of Appeal considered whether Mrs. Blood could take the sperm to Belgium for treatment under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (free movement of services). The case was returned to HFEA for reconsideration on this ground.
  • Exportation Allowed: Despite the initial unlawful storage, the HFEA later permitted the sperm to be exported to Belgium under Section 24 of the HFEA 1990.
  • Subsequent Legal Challenge: After the birth of her child(ren), Diane Blood challenged the HFEA 1990 law regarding the inability to name deceased fathers on birth certificates.
  • HRA Incompatibility: Lawyers for the Health Secretary acknowledged that the HFEA 1990 was incompatible with the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998.
  • Resulting Law Reform: This case led to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (HFEA) 2008, which amended the earlier legislation.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra- Case Law-Hunter v Mann (1974): Notes on Disclosure During Court Proceedings
Core Principle: No breach of confidence occurs if confidential information is requested during court proceedings.
Facts: (Implicitly, the case deals with a situation where confidential information was sought during court).
Decision: (Implicitly, the court ruled that disclosing information under compulsion of court proceedings does not constitute a breach of confidence).
Commentary & Key Takeaways:
  • Lord Widgery CJ's Guidance for Doctors:
    • A doctor must answer questions posed in court.
    • However, if a question requires divulging information the doctor considers confidential, the doctor can:
      • Seek the judge's protection.
      • Ask the judge if answering is truly necessary.
    • The judge has the discretion to decide whether the doctor must answer.
    • The judge's decision hinges on the importance of the potential answer to the case at hand.
  • Absolute Immunity of Witnesses:
    • Doctors (and other witnesses) are protected from breach of confidence liability due to the absolute immunity afforded to witnesses in court. (Citing Watson v M’Ewan (1905) HL)
    • This immunity protects witnesses from liability for what they say during court testimony.
  • Important Limitation:
    • The witness immunity does not extend to requests for information from a solicitor outside of the formal court setting.
    • Solicitor requests for information outside of court are not protected by this immunity.
Key Concepts to Understand:
  • Breach of Confidence: The unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.
  • Absolute Immunity (of Witnesses): Legal protection shielding witnesses from liability for statements made during court proceedings.
  • Judicial Discretion: The power of a judge to make decisions based on their own judgment, within the bounds of the law.
  • Duty of a Doctor (in court): The obligation to answer questions truthfully, but with the ability to seek the judge's guidance on confidential matters. """



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Paton v British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees (1979)
Core Principle: A father has no legal right to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion.
Facts:
Husband (plaintiff) sought an injunction to stop his wife from terminating her pregnancy.
Wife had obtained the required medical certificates for the abortion.
Husband claimed the wife was acting in "bad faith" (reason unspecified in this summary).
Decision:
The High Court denied the husband's request for an injunction.
Significance & Implications:
Paternal Rights: This case establishes a clear precedent against paternal rights in the context of abortion decisions in the UK (and Scotland).
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Paton v UK (1980) at the European Commission level confirmed that denying the father the right to prevent the abortion did not violate his right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.
Scottish Law: The lack of paternal rights regarding abortion is also upheld in Scotland (Kelly v Kelly (1997)).



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Price (1969)
Core Principle
  • A doctor cannot be convicted of inducing a miscarriage if they do not know or believe the woman is pregnant when administering post-coital contraception. The mens rea is crucial.
Case Breakdown: R v Price
Facts:
  • Woman's Claim: A woman told Dr. Price she was pregnant and wanted an abortion.
  • Doctor's Belief: Dr. Price did not believe she was pregnant.
  • Action: He fitted her with an IUD.
  • Outcome: She miscarried two days later.
  • Medical Evidence: A police surgeon stated she was "manifestly" pregnant shortly before the miscarriage.
  • Initial Conviction: Dr. Price was initially convicted of inducing a miscarriage under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Decision (Court of Appeal):
  • Conviction Quashed: The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction.
  • Reasoning:
    • Misdirection: The jury was improperly instructed.
    • Insufficient Evidence: There wasn't enough proof that Dr. Price believed the woman was pregnant.
  • Sachs LJ's Statement (Key Quote): The crucial question for the jury was whether Dr. Price knew or believed the patient was pregnant and inserted the IUD with the intent to cause a miscarriage. (Highlights mens rea).
Important Implications of the Case:
  • Focus on Mens Rea: The case emphasizes that the doctor's belief about the pregnancy is paramount. Even if the woman was pregnant, if the doctor didn't believe so, it's not a crime.
  • Post-Coital Contraception: Implies that administering bona fide post-coital contraception, with no knowledge or belief of pregnancy, is not an offense.
Related Case: R v Dhingra (1991)
  • Facts: Doctor fitted his secretary with an IUD 11 days after intercourse.
  • Outcome: Judge withdrew the case from the jury.
  • Reasoning: Evidence suggested implantation (pregnancy) could not have occurred within that timeframe.
  • Significance: Further reinforces the principle that if there is no possibility of pregnancy, an attempt to induce a miscarriage is not possible.
Key Takeaways for Exam Prep:
  1. The Importance of Belief: The doctor's honest belief (or lack thereof) about pregnancy is the central issue.
  2. Mens Rea (Intent): The act must be done with the intent to cause a miscarriage. If the doctor doesn't believe a pregnancy exists, they can't have the intent to end it.
  3. Post-Coital Context: Understand how these cases relate to the legality of post-coital contraception.
  4. Distinguish the Cases: Know the specific facts of Price and Dhingra and how they support the overall legal principle.
Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-R v Smith (1974)
Core Principle: A doctor's opinion justifying an abortion under statutory grounds must be formed in good faith.
Facts:
Defendant: Doctor (Smith)
Action: Performed an abortion on a pregnant woman.
Complication: Woman became ill post-abortion.
Key Issues:
Doctor did NOT obtain the required second medical opinion.
Doctor did NOT adequately assess if the risks of the pregnancy outweighed the risks of the abortion itself.
Initial Verdict: Guilty of procuring a miscarriage under s 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
Decision:
Court: Court of Appeal
Outcome: Appeal was dismissed. This upheld the original conviction.
Implications:
This case highlights the importance of adhering to the procedural and substantive requirements when performing abortions.
It underscores that a doctor cannot simply perform an abortion; they MUST genuinely believe that the legal criteria are met.
"Good faith" means the doctor must have honestly and reasonably formed the opinion based on the patient's circumstances.
Failure to obtain a second opinion (when required) and properly assess risks can lead to criminal liability.



Picture
Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Janaway v Salford HA (1989)
Core Issue:
Scope of Conscientious Objection Clause: Does the conscientious objection clause in the Abortion Act 1967 extend to acts ancillary to the performance of an abortion?
Facts:
Plaintiff: Medical secretary (Janaway).
Religious Belief: Practicing Roman Catholic.
Action Refused: Refused to type a referral letter for an abortion due to religious beliefs.
Consequence: Dismissal from her position.
Legal Claim: Unfair dismissal, arguing protection under s 4(1) of the Abortion Act 1967.
Decision (House of Lords):
Ancillary Act: Typing the referral letter was deemed an ancillary act.
Section 4(1) Inapplicable: Section 4(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 (conscientious objection clause) did not protect her refusal to type the letter.
Outcome: Her claim of unfair dismissal based on the conscientious objection clause failed.
Key Takeaway:
The conscientious objection clause in the Abortion Act 1967 is interpreted narrowly. It does not extend to cover acts that are merely ancillary to the actual performance of an abortion. The HL said that the acts need to partcipate in the abortion itself.



Picture

Author

Learn the fact about law