By Dave Andrusko
That the decision was not unexpected doesn’t make the sting any the less painful.
Just two days ago, the High Court in London refused permission for pro-lifer Aisling Hubert to seek a judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision not to press charges against two abortionists caught on video agreeing to perform sex-selective abortions.
The two abortionists are Prabha Sivaraman and Palaniappan Rajmohan. As NRL News Today reported, both were secretly filmed in 2012 by the Daily Telegraph. Two reporters posed as women seeking abortions because they were expecting girls.
A probe was launched by the police and the General Medical Council. Rajmohan had originally faced a criminal charge, but the legal system wanted little to nothing to do with the results of the newspaper’s undercover investigation.
As NRL News Today reported, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) dropped the case, claiming that although there was “sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction,” it was not “in the public interest” to take action.
The director of public prosecutions (DPP) decided it was “more appropriate for the doctors to be dealt with through professional disciplinary hearings,” the BBC reported. By that was meant the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service.
But faced with a private prosecution by Aisling Hubert against Rajmohan and Sivaraman, the CPS jumped back in, took the case over, and used its power to quash the case.
“It is the second time in two years that the CPS has blocked a prosecution against the pair despite acknowledging that the evidence could lead to a successful prosecution,” the Telegraph’s John Bingham reported. That’s when Hubert appealed to High Court in London.
On Tuesday Lord Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Irwin refused Hubert’s request for a judicial review of the CPS decision not to press charges. According to the Christian Institute
Hubert’s barrister Paul Diamond told the High Court that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the CPS had made an “error of law”.
But Mr. Justice Irwin said there was never going to be an abortion and the only evidence concerned “preparatory acts” [was] revealed by a newspaper investigation.
The judges are to set out their full reasons at a later date.
Speaking ahead of the High Court decision, Hubert said: “The video evidence is stark and straightforward but for political and ideological reasons, it is being blocked from exposure to the proper scrutiny of justice in court”.
What about the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service? It dropped its investigation into Sivaraman.
Then, in November, the Daily Mail reported, the GMC concluded that Rajmohan had acted dishonestly because he agreed to record a false reason. (Actually he came up with the bogus explanation–listing that the abortion was sought because the girl was too young.)
For that the General Medical Council suspended Rajmohan’s license for a paltry three months.