logo
‘I gave birth three months early – then police investigated me over an illegal abortion'

‘I gave birth three months early – then police investigated me over an illegal abortion'

Yahoo14-05-2025

Sammy was being ferried into an ambulance by paramedics – after giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to her newborn baby – when she realised there were around eight police officers in her living room.
The mother, in her thirties, had just given birth at home to a baby boy who arrived over three months early, weighing just one pound and seven ounces – little more than a bag of sugar.
Police had arrived to assist her in giving lifesaving CPR. But Sammy* says that, while in shock from the traumatic and unexpected birth – and with her baby still fighting for his life – she suddenly found herself at the centre of a criminal investigation.
This would become a devastating 51-week ordeal, triggered by England's 164-year-old law criminalising abortion, despite the fact that she hadn't actually had one.
'My front room was full of police officers – there must have been about eight. Then out on the street, my husband said there were two ambulances, two unmarked police cars, and a regular police car. I just thought: why?'
Sammy has decided to retell her horrific experience as the issue of illegal abortion in the UK reached parliament this week.
Tonia Antoniazzi, Labour MP for Gower, has put forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to remove the criminal aspect of ending abortions illegally, to bring England and Wales in line with Scotland and Northern Ireland. MPs are expected to vote on the issue this summer.
In an interview with The Independent, Sammy said: 'They were following my husband around – he wasn't allowed to be alone. I was at the hospital, not knowing what was happening at home. Then, they told my son he had to leave. He had 10 minutes to get his things and get out.'
According to Sammy, that day police seized all their electronic devices, including two Xboxes, cordoned off their home with crime scene tape, and arrested her husband when he returned to pick up clean clothes – 'under suspicion of procuring a miscarriage by instrument or tablets'.
They dug through bins and held on to her placenta for months. The next morning, when she was discharged from hospital while her baby fought for his life in an incubator, she says she was questioned by police about whether she had attempted to end the pregnancy illegally.
Sammy told police she had only explored the option of a termination and researched abortion pills online, but had been told she was too far along in the pregnancy to go ahead with it.
'I was open and honest from the get-go, but we were treated like criminals,' she says, visibly distressed. 'When they took me to the police station for questioning – I cried through most of it and just said, 'No comment.''
Her husband, released on bail, was initially barred from seeing or even communicating with Sammy or their baby. Even when that restriction was eased, the parents were only allowed to visit their new son under police supervision. This went on for 51 weeks.
Shortly before the baby's first birthday, the investigation was finally dropped, and Sammy and her husband were cleared. But the damage had been done.
'No other woman should have to go through that. Abortion should be decriminalised,' she says.
Sammy's story, though horrifying, is not an anomaly. She is one of more than 100 women whom rights groups believe have been investigated by police in recent years under the same 164-year-old Offences Against the Person Act which Ranee Thakar, the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), tells The Independent is 'the oldest healthcare law still in existence.'
Some women have even had their children removed. In fact, there has been an unprecedented surge in convictions related to abortions and pregnancy losses under this legislation.
Six women have appeared in court over the past two years charged with ending their own pregnancies. Prior to that, only three convictions had been reported for illegal abortion since the law was introduced in 1861.
There is a common misconception that abortion is legal in the UK. The 1967 Abortion Act legalised terminations in England, Wales, and Scotland, now up to 24 weeks, provided two doctors sign off that continuing the pregnancy would pose a risk to the woman's physical or mental health.
In the wake of the pandemic, that was amended to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to have a medical abortion at home.
Outside of those bounds, women are at risk of jail – which is where rights groups say the problem lies. Just this week, Nicola Packer – who endured a four-year investigation and public trial – was unanimously acquitted by a jury at Isleworth Crown Court in southwest London.
She had been accused of 'unlawfully administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the 'intent to procure a miscarriage'.
In the wake of her acquittal, she told The Independent the process had been deeply traumatic – critics said she faced public shaming at the hands of prosecutors.
'The stress for more than four years was immense, and it was impossible to live normally,' Ms Packer tells The Independent.
'Although it's a relief that I was finally believed and it's all over, it's going to be very hard to ever trust the NHS and police again.'
Jonathan Lord, the clinician in charge of Ms Packer's care and co-chair of the RCOG abortion taskforce, slammed the process as a 'vindictive and brutal prosecution in which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) weaponised victim-shaming'.
Lord, who said he has had to help several women and teenagers who have been investigated by the police, says it is 'incredibly traumatic, where every element of your most personal life is exposed, your phone and computer are taken and searched for messages, images, menstrual apps, and internet searches'.
'Even in those who are never charged, most have suffered long-term mental health issues and post-traumatic stress disorder and say they cannot trust the NHS or police again.'
The situation is now so urgent that 60 MPs, multiple Royal Colleges (including the RCOG), and numerous healthcare professionals are backing a cross-party amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that would remove women from the criminal law in relation to ending their own pregnancies and bring England and Wales.
The amendment was laid in Parliament on Tuesday night by Ms Antoniazzi.
She tells The Independent that an increasing number of women have been subjected to 'utterly deplorable' criminal investigations for a 'crime' that does not even apply in two other parts of the UK: Scotland and Northern Ireland.
'The harm inflicted upon these women is lifelong and profound. This cannot continue,' she says, adding that it particularly impacts vulnerable women.
The Royal College's Dr Thakar said one of the biggest concerns is the chilling effect the law could have on women and healthcare providers.
The RCOG was so alarmed by the rise in investigations that it issued new guidance to medical professionals last January, urging them not to report women to police if they suspect a pregnancy may have been ended illegally.
'Many women may become too afraid to seek help, fearing criminal consequences. Abortion care is a safe, essential part of healthcare. By criminalising it, we make a safe procedure unsafe because women avoid seeking help when they need it,' she continues.
'They should be treated with care and compassion, without judgment or fear of imprisonment. Otherwise, the result is silence and suffering.'
Another backer of the law change is the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which told The Independent that women 'are being arrested straight from the hospital ward, their homes searched, and their children taken away'.
'This cannot continue. Members of Parliament have a moral duty to decriminalise abortion for women and end the threat of police, prosecutions, and imprisonment once and for all,' Katie Saxon, chief strategic communications officer at BPAS, said.
It comes amid a groundswell of support for change. In a separate initiative launched this month, a cross-party group of MPs led by Stella Creasy called for abortion to be protected as a human right in England and Wales, following a similar, successful campaign in Northern Ireland in 2019.
Other countries have enshrined a human right to access abortion, Creasy said at the time, adding that now is the time to act as 'politicians are using women's bodies as their battlefield'.
Last month, campaigners spearheaded by teacher Gemma Clark and supported by BPAS, delivered a petition to Downing Street that was signed by over 100,000 UK residents calling on parliament to reform the abortion law. It has triggered a debate in parliament expected in the coming weeks
The Independent asked the CPS about the devastating impact the surge in investigations and convictions was having on women involved – particularly in the wake of Nicola Packer's trial, during which personal details were shared in court.
A spokesperson defended the move, saying that information was shared 'only to establish the fact of when she may have fallen pregnant, and her understanding of the gestation period'.
'Our prosecutors exercise the greatest care when considering complex and traumatic cases such as this one,' a spokesperson added.
A government spokesperson, meanwhile, said that 'All women have access to safe and legal abortions on the NHS' and that 'decisions to prosecute – within existing legislation – are for the CPS and are incredibly rare.'
In Sammy's case, the relevant police force acknowledged in a statement to The Independent the 'particular sensitivities of this case' but said the initial investigation was undertaken 'to safeguard all involved'.
They defended the action to investigate and the duration: 'This was a complex investigation, requiring extensive forensic and medical evidence, and unfortunately these kinds of enquiries take time.'
But Sammy says she fears that other women will 'lie and hide' if they find themselves in her position unless the law changes, due to fear of being prosecuted.
During her investigation, she says she spent nearly a year 'thinking every little car door that slams is the police coming to take me and my husband away.'
Now she is trying to piece her life back together, while still worrying the police might come after her again.'I was open and honest with them… that openness and honesty got me nowhere. I got treated like a criminal when I am not one.
'Look at the outcome. All we got was an apology and a message that the investigation was dropped.'The law needs to be changed. I wouldn't wish this upon anyone.'
*Name changed

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Dutch Far-Right Leader's Bid for More Power Risks Flopping
Dutch Far-Right Leader's Bid for More Power Risks Flopping

Bloomberg

time5 hours ago

  • Bloomberg

Dutch Far-Right Leader's Bid for More Power Risks Flopping

Geert Wilders is betting that triggering the collapse of an unloved Dutch government will position him to emerge stronger and become the nation's dominant political figure, but signs are emerging that the far-right leader's gambit could backfire. By alienating potential coalition partners and testing the patience of weary voters, Wilders is losing support compared to the last election and his Freedom Party's lead over the GreenLeft–Labour alliance has narrowed.

Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says
Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says

Yahoo

time9 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Russia is at war with Britain and US is no longer a reliable ally, UK adviser says

Russia is at war with Britain, the US is no longer a reliable ally and the UK has to respond by becoming more cohesive and more resilient, according to one of the three authors of the strategic defence review. Fiona Hill, from County Durham, became the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term and contributed to the British government's strategy. She made the remarks in an interview with the Guardian. 'We're in pretty big trouble,' Hill said, describing the UK's geopolitical situation as caught between 'the rock' of Vladimir Putin's Russia and 'the hard place' of Donald Trump's increasingly unpredictable US. Hill, 59, is perhaps the best known of the reviewers appointed by Labour, alongside Lord Robertson, a former Nato secretary general, and the retired general Sir Richard Barrons. She said she was happy to take on the role because it was 'such a major pivot point in global affairs'. She remains a dual national after living in the US for more than 30 years. 'Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't fully anticipated,' Hill said, arguing that Putin saw the Ukraine war as a starting point to Moscow becoming 'a dominant military power in all of Europe'. As part of that long-term effort, Russia was already 'menacing the UK in various different ways,' she said, citing 'the poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber-attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they're putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.' The conclusion, Hill said, was that 'Russia is at war with us'. The foreign policy expert, a longtime Russia watcher, said she had first made a similar warning in 2015, in a revised version of a book she wrote about the Russian president with Clifford Gaddy, reflecting on the invasion and annexation of Crimea. 'We said Putin had declared war on the west,' she said. At the time, other experts disagreed, but Hill said events since had demonstrated 'he obviously had, and we haven't been paying attention to it'. The Russian leader, she argues, sees the fight in Ukraine as 'part of a proxy war with the United States; that's how he has persuaded China, North Korea and Iran to join in'. Putin believed that Ukraine had already been decoupled from the US relationship, Hill said, because 'Trump really wants to have a separate relationship with Putin to do arms control agreements and also business that will probably enrich their entourages further, though Putin doesn't need any more enrichment'. When it came to defence, however, she said the UK could not rely on the military umbrella of the US as during the cold war and in the generation that followed, at least 'not in the way that we did before'. In her description, the UK 'is having to manage its number one ally', though the challenge is not to overreact because 'you don't want to have a rupture'. This way of thinking appears in the defence review published earlier this week, which says 'the UK's longstanding assumptions about global power balances and structures are no longer certain' – a rare acknowledgment in a British government document of how far and how fast Trumpism is affecting foreign policy certainties. The review team reported to Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves, and the defence secretary, John Healey. Most of Hill's interaction were with Healey, however, and she said she had met the prime minister only once – describing him as 'pretty charming … in a proper and correct way' and as 'having read all the papers'. Hill was not drawn on whether she had advised Starmer or Healey on how to deal with Donald Trump, saying instead: 'The advice I would give is the same I would give in a public setting.' She said simply that the Trump White House 'is not an administration, it is a court' in which a transactional president is driven by his 'own desires and interests, and who listens often to the last person he talks to'. She added that unlike his close circle, Trump had 'a special affinity for the UK' based partly on his own family ties (his mother came from the Hebridean island of Lewis, emigrating to New York aged 18) and an admiration for the royal family, particularly the late queen. 'He talked endlessly about that,' she said. On the other hand, Hill is no fan of the populist right administration in the White House and worries it could come to Britain if 'the same culture wars' are allowed to develop with the encouragement of Republicans from the US. She noted that Reform UK had won a string of council elections last month, including in her native Durham, and that the party's leader, Nigel Farage, wanted to emulate some of the aggressive efforts to restructure government led by Elon Musk's 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) before his falling-out with Trump. 'When Nigel Farage says he wants to do a Doge against the local county council, he should come over here [to the US] and see what kind of impact that has,' she said. 'This is going to be the largest layoffs in US history happening all at once, much bigger than hits to steelworks and coalmines.' Hill's argument is that in a time of profound uncertainty, Britain needs greater internal cohesion if it is to protect itself. 'We can't rely exclusively on anyone any more,' she said, arguing that Britain needed to have 'a different mindset' based as much on traditional defence as on social resilience. Some of that, Hill said, was about a greater recognition of the level of external threat and initiatives for greater integration, by teaching first aid in schools or encouraging more teenagers to join school cadet forces, a recommendation of the defence review. 'What you need to do is get people engaged in all kinds of different ways in support of their communities,' she said. Hill said she saw that deindustrialisation and a rise of inequality in Russia and the US had contributed to the rise in national populism in both countries. Politicians in Britain, or elsewhere, 'have to be much more creative and engage people where they are at' as part of a 'national effort', she said. If this seems far away from a conventional view of defence, that's because it is, though Hill also argues that traditional conceptions of war are changing as technology evolves and with it what makes a potent force. 'People keep saying the British army has the smallest number of troops since the Napoleonic era. Why is the Napoleonic era relevant? Or that we have fewer ships than the time of Charles II. The metrics are all off here,' she said. 'The Ukrainians are fighting with drones. Even though they have no navy, they sank a third of the Russian Black Sea fleet.' Her aim, therefore, is not just to be critical but to propose solutions. Hill recalled that a close family friend, on hearing that she had taken on the defence review, had told her: ''Don't tell us how shite we are, tell us what we can do, how we can fix things.' People understand that we have a problem and that the world has changed.'

Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels

Yahoo

time10 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels

The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store