A former British army reservist will face a Nov. 16 trial on criminal charges arising from a silent prayer near an abortion clinic in Bournemouth, England, a British court said Wednesday.
Adam Smith-Connor in November stood silently with his head bowed and his back to the clinic on Ophir Road in the coastal resort town. He was initially fined £100 ($127.32 U.S.) but later was criminally charged with breaching a Public Spaces Protection Order that covered the clinic and surrounding area.
Mr. Smith-Connor pleaded not guilty during Wednesday’s hearing at Poole Magistrates’ Court.
Outside the courthouse, Mr. Smith-Connor broke down in tears during his statement, saying “stood silently” near the facility and “did not approach anyone [and] did not speak to anyone.”
He said he is a 20-year British army reservist who served in Afghanistan and is “being prosecuted for a thought crime.” He vowed to appeal his case “as far as we can, to the European Court of Human Rights, if necessary.”
Rachael Clarke, chief of staff at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which operates clinics across the country, said Mr. Smith-Connor’s action wasn’t as innocent as he claims.
“This is essentially a stunt designed to provoke arguments in this way because ultimately, he is not a local person” in the Bournemouth area, Ms. Clarke said in a telephone interview. “He is not doing it because he believes that this is what he needs to do. He’s chosen to go there because he knows there is a local ban on it.”
The British Parliament in March enacted a law authorizing similar “safe access zones” around abortion facilities nationwide, a move critics claim establishes “censorship zones.” Ms. Clarke said the law has “not yet come into force.”
Callum Miller, a research fellow at the University of Oxford’s Blackfriars Hall, said the national law and local ordinances such as the one covering the Bournemouth clinic are addressing a problem that doesn’t exist.
Where governments in the United Kingdom and Ireland have investigated the conduct of protesters near abortion clinics, “in the overwhelming majority of cases, it has been completely peaceful, lawful, often silent activity. Harassment is already illegal in the U.K. and was illegal before these censorship zones were bought in,” Mr. Miller said in an interview.
According to a statement from the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council, which enforced the protection order for the clinic and charged Mr. Smith-Connor, said he “without reasonable excuse … failed to leave the required area.”
He was issued the fine about a month after the incident, said attorneys at ADF UK, a public interest law firm defending Mr. Smith-Connor.
The legal group said council officials issued the criminal charge against Mr. Smith-Connor on May 12, shortly before a window to file charges closed, but did not notify him of the charges until July 19.
An ADF UK attorney said that delay could be grounds for a court to dismiss the case because the law requires defendants to be notified of charges “as soon as possible.”
Jeremiah Igunnubole, an ADF UK legal counsel who was in court Wednesday with Mr. Smith-Connor, told The Washington Times in a telephone interview the delay in notification could be considered “an abuse of process” by the court, which will hear arguments on the legal points of the case Nov. 2.
“Perhaps the more weighty matter is the fact that Adam was informed by police officers a week before the encounter in question that his action of standing motionless in one place, praying silently, was not an offense in England,” Mr. Igunnubole said. “There’s a serious contradiction here between what the police on the one hand told him unequivocally and what the council are now seeking to prosecute him for.”
The ADF UK attorney said Mr. Smith-Connor had “a legitimate expectation that his actions were perfectly legal,” only to have council enforcement officers later fine him and the council itself file criminal charges.
Mr. Igunnubole said this case — the third such action in Britain this year — raises the specter of “thought crime” prosecutions in other areas.
“Once you introduce content-based criminal prosecutions based on what somebody is thinking, then there really is no logical endpoint,” he said. “Because anything, any viewpoint that goes against the prevailing norms of society today, may well change to something else tomorrow.”
Asked for comment on the case, a council spokesperson said via email, “Due to the ongoing legal proceedings, the Council is unable to make a further statement in relation to this matter.”
• Mark A. Kellner can be reached at mkellner@washingtontimes.com.