Editing Abortion in the United Kingdom (section)

===Case law before 2019===
Between 1993 and 1999, a series of court cases had interpreted the law as also allowing for abortion in cases where, for the pregnant woman, "there is a risk of real and serious adverse effect on her physical or mental health, which is either long term or permanent".<ref>{{cite web |title=Guidance for HSC professionals on termination of pregnancy in Northern Ireland |url=https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dhssps/guidance-termination-pregnancy.pdf |website=www.health-ni.gov.uk |publisher=Department of Health (Northern Ireland) |access-date=2 August 2019 |pages=36–37 |date=24 March 2016 |archive-date=6 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190806071508/https://www.health-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dhssps/guidance-termination-pregnancy.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>''R v Bourne'' [1939] 1 KB 687</ref><ref>''[http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-gb/judicial%20decisions/publishedbyyear/documents/2004/2004%20nica%2039/j_j_nicc5061.htm Family Planning Association of Northern Ireland v Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150120155151/http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-gb/judicial%20decisions/publishedbyyear/documents/2004/2004%20nica%2039/j_j_nicc5061.htm |date=20 January 2015 }}'' [2004] NICA 39 at paragraph [51], per Nicholson LJ</ref>

In ''Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Board v A and Others'' [1994] NIJB 1, [[John MacDermott (judge)|Lord Justice MacDermott]] said that he was "satisfied that the statutory phrase, 'for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother' does not relate only to some life-threatening situation. Life in this context means that physical or mental health or well-being of the mother and the doctor's act is lawful where the continuance of the pregnancy would adversely affect the mental or physical health of the mother. The adverse effect must however be a real and serious one and there will always be a question of fact and degree whether the perceived effect of non-termination is sufficiently grave to warrant terminating the unborn child."

In ''Western Health and Social Services Board v CMB and the Official Solicitor'' (1995, unreported), Mr Justice Pringle stated that "the adverse effect must be permanent or long-term and cannot be short term ... in most cases the adverse effect would need to be a probable risk of non-termination but a possible risk might be sufficient if the imminent death of the mother was a risk in question".<ref>Quoted by Nicholson LJ at paragraph 56 of ''Family Planning Association of Northern Ireland v Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety'' [http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-gb/judicial%20decisions/publishedbyyear/documents/2004/2004%20nica%2039/j_j_nicc5061.htm {{bracket|2004}} NICA 39] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150120155151/http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-gb/judicial%20decisions/publishedbyyear/documents/2004/2004%20nica%2039/j_j_nicc5061.htm |date=20 January 2015 }}</ref>

In ''Family Planning Association of Northern Ireland v Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety'' (October 2004), Lord Justice Nicholson stated that "it is unlawful to procure a miscarriage where the foetus is abnormal but viable, unless there is a risk that the mother may die or is likely to suffer long-term harm, which is serious, to her physical or mental health".<ref>{{cite web | title = Family Planning Association of Northern Ireland v. The Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (ref: 2004 NICA 39) | url = http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-gb/judicial%20decisions/publishedbyyear/documents/2004/2004%20nica%2039/j_j_nicc5061.htm | publisher = [[Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland)|Northern Ireland Court of Appeal]] (NICA) | date = 8 October 2004 | access-date = 20 January 2015 | archive-date = 20 January 2015 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150120155151/http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-gb/judicial%20decisions/publishedbyyear/documents/2004/2004%20nica%2039/j_j_nicc5061.htm | url-status = dead }}</ref> In the same case, Lord Justice Sheil stated that "termination of a pregnancy based solely on abnormality of the foetus is unlawful and cannot lawfully be carried out in this jurisdiction".<ref>{{cite web | title = Family Planning Association of Northern Ireland v. The Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (ref: 2004 NICA 37) | url = http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-gb/judicial%20decisions/publishedbyyear/documents/2004/2004%20nica%2037/j_j_shef5066.htm | publisher = [[Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland)|Northern Ireland Court of Appeal]] (NICA) | date = 8 October 2004 | access-date = 20 January 2015 | archive-date = 20 January 2015 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150120165916/http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-gb/judicial%20decisions/publishedbyyear/documents/2004/2004%20nica%2037/j_j_shef5066.htm | url-status = dead }}</ref>

In November 2015, Lord Justice Horner made a [[declaration of incompatibility]] under the [[Human Rights Act 1998]] to the effect that Northern Ireland's law on abortion (specifically its lack of provision in cases of fatal foetal abnormality or where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest) could not be interpreted in a manner consistent with [[Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights]] i.e. a right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence; the convention also protects a right to life in [[Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 2]].<ref>{{cite BAILII |litigants = The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's Application |court = NIHC |division = QB |year = 2015 |num = 96 |date = 30 November 2015 |courtname = auto |parallelcite = [2015] NIQB 96}}</ref> In June 2017, the declaration of incompatibility was quashed by the [[Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland|Court of Appeal]] on the grounds that "a broad margin of appreciation must be accorded to the state" and "a fair balance has been struck by the law as it presently stands until the legislature decides otherwise".<ref>{{cite BAILII|litigants=Attorney General for Northern Ireland & The Department for Justice v The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission|link=|court=NICA|year=2017|num=42|date=29 June 2017|courtname=[[Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland]]|juris=Northern Ireland}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/29/northern-irish-appeal-court-refuses-limited-lifting-of-abortion-ban|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|title=Northern Irish appeal court refuses limited lifting of abortion ban|last=McDonald|first=Henry|date=29 June 2017|access-date=8 June 2018}}</ref> In June 2018, the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom]] held that the law of Northern Ireland was incompatible with the right to respect for private and family life, insofar as the law prohibited abortion in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality. However, the court did not restore the declaration of incompatibility as it also held that the claimant did not have standing to bring the proceedings and accordingly the court had no jurisdiction to make a declaration of incompatibility reflect its view on the compatibility issues.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0131-judgment.pdf|title=In the matter of an application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)|website=www.supremecourt.uk|publisher=The Supreme Court|language=en|access-date=2018-06-10}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/northern-ireland-abortion-law-supreme-court-human-rights-violation-ruling-dup-latest-a8387206.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180613011224/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/northern-ireland-abortion-law-supreme-court-human-rights-violation-ruling-dup-latest-a8387206.html |archive-date=2018-06-13 |url-access=limited |url-status=live|title=Supreme Court rules Northern Ireland's abortion law breaches human rights but rejects challenge on technical grounds|work=The Independent|access-date=2018-06-10|language=en-GB}}</ref> The judgments of the Supreme Court acknowledged that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaration of incompatibility but included a [[Obiter dictum|non-binding opinion]] that an incompatibility existed, and that a future case in which the applicant had the necessary standing would be likely to succeed. It also urged the authorities "responsible for ensuring the compatibility of Northern Ireland law with the Convention rights" to "recognise and take account of these conclusions ... by considering whether and how to amend the law".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/all-eyes-are-now-on-government-after-supreme-court-rule-northern-ireland-abortion-laws-incompatible-with-human-rights-laws-36985876.html|newspaper=Belfast Telegraph|title='All eyes are now on Government' after Supreme Court rule Northern Ireland abortion laws 'incompatible' with human rights laws|date=7 June 2018|access-date=8 June 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite BAILII|litigants=Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland: Abortion) |link=|court=UKSC|reporter=|scotcase=|year=2018|volume=|firstpage=|num=27|format=|parallelcite=|date=7 June 2018|courtname=[[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|Supreme Court]]|juris=United Kingdom|ref=}}</ref>