北爱尔兰总检察长参考资料-堕胎服务(安全通道区)(北爱尔兰)法案[2022]:安全通道区立法的相称性

Q2 Social Sciences
Emily Ottley
{"title":"北爱尔兰总检察长参考资料-堕胎服务(安全通道区)(北爱尔兰)法案[2022]:安全通道区立法的相称性","authors":"Emily Ottley","doi":"10.1177/09685332231164784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an unanimous judgment given by Lord Reed on 7 December 2022, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) held that clause 5(2)(a) of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zone) (Northern Ireland) Bill is a proportionate interference with the rights of those who wish to express opposition to abortion services in Northern Ireland. This clause would make it an offence to do an act within the safe access zone with the intention of or being reckless as to the possibility of directly or indirectly influencing a protected person. In this comment, I analyse the reasoning of the UKSC. I consider, first, the clarifications offered by the UKSC on issues related to the proportionality assessment itself. I then turn my attention to the application of the proportionality test by the UKSC to the facts of the reference. I conclude that the reasoning of the UKSC in Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland – Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill is sound. The UKSC’s decision is relevant to plans to introduce similar legislation in Scotland and to any future human rights based challenges to the English and Welsh Public Order Bill, which will create a similar offence to the one in clause 5(2)(a) of the Northern Ireland Bill when it becomes law later this year. Moreover, the decision is significant because the UKSC had not previously considered the proportionality of safe access zone legislation. The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zone) (Northern Ireland) Bill has now received Royal Assent.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"23 1","pages":"88 - 98"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland – Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill [2022]: The proportionality of safe access zone legislation\",\"authors\":\"Emily Ottley\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09685332231164784\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In an unanimous judgment given by Lord Reed on 7 December 2022, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) held that clause 5(2)(a) of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zone) (Northern Ireland) Bill is a proportionate interference with the rights of those who wish to express opposition to abortion services in Northern Ireland. This clause would make it an offence to do an act within the safe access zone with the intention of or being reckless as to the possibility of directly or indirectly influencing a protected person. In this comment, I analyse the reasoning of the UKSC. I consider, first, the clarifications offered by the UKSC on issues related to the proportionality assessment itself. I then turn my attention to the application of the proportionality test by the UKSC to the facts of the reference. I conclude that the reasoning of the UKSC in Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland – Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill is sound. The UKSC’s decision is relevant to plans to introduce similar legislation in Scotland and to any future human rights based challenges to the English and Welsh Public Order Bill, which will create a similar offence to the one in clause 5(2)(a) of the Northern Ireland Bill when it becomes law later this year. Moreover, the decision is significant because the UKSC had not previously considered the proportionality of safe access zone legislation. The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zone) (Northern Ireland) Bill has now received Royal Assent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law International\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"88 - 98\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231164784\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231164784","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在里德勋爵于2022年12月7日作出的一致判决中,联合王国最高法院(UKSC)认为,《堕胎服务(安全通道)(北爱尔兰)法案》第5(2)(a)条是对那些希望表达反对北爱尔兰堕胎服务的人的权利的适当干涉。这一条款规定,有意或不顾可能直接或间接影响受保护人而在安全进入区内采取行动,即属犯罪。在这篇评论中,我分析了UKSC的推理。我首先考虑到英国法律委员会就与比例性评估本身有关的问题所作的澄清。然后我把我的注意力转向比例测试的应用由UKSC对参考的事实。我的结论是,《北爱尔兰总检察长参考UKSC -堕胎服务(安全进入区)(北爱尔兰)法案》的推理是合理的。英国最高法院的决定与在苏格兰引入类似立法的计划有关,也与未来对《英格兰和威尔士公共秩序法案》提出的任何基于人权的挑战有关,该法案将在今年晚些时候成为法律时,构成与《北爱尔兰法案》第5(2)(a)条类似的罪行。此外,这一决定意义重大,因为英国安全委员会以前没有考虑安全进入区立法的相称性。《堕胎服务(安全进入区)(北爱尔兰)法案》现已获得王室批准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland – Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill [2022]: The proportionality of safe access zone legislation
In an unanimous judgment given by Lord Reed on 7 December 2022, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (UKSC) held that clause 5(2)(a) of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zone) (Northern Ireland) Bill is a proportionate interference with the rights of those who wish to express opposition to abortion services in Northern Ireland. This clause would make it an offence to do an act within the safe access zone with the intention of or being reckless as to the possibility of directly or indirectly influencing a protected person. In this comment, I analyse the reasoning of the UKSC. I consider, first, the clarifications offered by the UKSC on issues related to the proportionality assessment itself. I then turn my attention to the application of the proportionality test by the UKSC to the facts of the reference. I conclude that the reasoning of the UKSC in Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland – Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill is sound. The UKSC’s decision is relevant to plans to introduce similar legislation in Scotland and to any future human rights based challenges to the English and Welsh Public Order Bill, which will create a similar offence to the one in clause 5(2)(a) of the Northern Ireland Bill when it becomes law later this year. Moreover, the decision is significant because the UKSC had not previously considered the proportionality of safe access zone legislation. The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zone) (Northern Ireland) Bill has now received Royal Assent.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Law International
Medical Law International Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The scope includes: Clinical Negligence. Health Matters Affecting Civil Liberties. Forensic Medicine. Determination of Death. Organ and Tissue Transplantation. End of Life Decisions. Legal and Ethical Issues in Medical Treatment. Confidentiality. Access to Medical Records. Medical Complaints Procedures. Professional Discipline. Employment Law and Legal Issues within NHS. Resource Allocation in Health Care. Mental Health Law. Misuse of Drugs. Legal and Ethical Issues concerning Human Reproduction. Therapeutic Products. Medical Research. Cloning. Gene Therapy. Genetic Testing and Screening. And Related Topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信