British army veteran Adam Smith-Connor is facing trial this week for silently praying within a legally designated 'buffer zone' near an abortion clinic.
These zones are intended to prevent behaviours that might intimidate women entering the clinic.
According to Alliance Defending Freedom UK (ADF UK), the organisation representing Smith-Connor, in 2022 he spent approximately three minutes praying silently outside an abortion clinic before local authorities approached him to ask about his actions.
Now a husband and father of two, Smith-Connor had previously paid for an abortion for his ex-girlfriend and told officers that he was praying for his deceased son.
A month later, Smith-Connor received a fixed penalty notice, or fine, for praying near the clinic. Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council brought the charges, and after nearly two years of legal proceedings, the trial is scheduled to last three days.
Smith-Connor's case is the third high-profile trial related to silent prayer in abortion "buffer zones." In March 2022, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce and Father Sean Gough were both found "not guilty" of similar charges. Vaughan-Spruce was later arrested again for silent prayer and received a £13,000 settlement for unlawful arrests.
Currently, five UK councils enforce "buffer zones", and in March 2023 Parliament voted to extend these nationwide under the Public Order Act. The government is expected to implement this law soon, with the possibility that "silent prayer" near abortion clinics will be criminalised.
Ahead of his trial, Smith-Connor said: "Nobody should be prosecuted for silent prayer. It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime."
ADF UK counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole commented: "In permitting the prosecution of silent prayer, we are sailing into dangerous waters regarding human rights protections in the UK. Censorship zones are inherently wrong and create unhelpful legal confusion regarding the right to free thought. Both domestic and international law have long established freedom of thought as an absolute right that must never be interfered with by the state."