Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, Co-CEO of March for Life UK. (Photo: ADF UK)
Pro-life campaigner Isabel Vaughan-Spruce has had a legal Sword of Damocles over her head for 10 months as British authorities continue to decide whether or not to charge her for silent prayer in an abortion clinic buffer zone.
Vaughan-Spruce was first arrested in December 2022 for silently praying in an abortion buffer zone in Birmingham.
While she was acquitted of all charges the following February, just a few weeks later she was arrested again.
A six-month police investigation followed and resulted in all charges being dropped and Vaughan-Spruce receiving an apology and £13,000 in compensation from West Midlands Police.
That was not the end of it however. In March of this year Vaughan-Spruce was told that she was under investigation. Typically, it takes West Midlands police two days to decide whether charges are being brought against an individual. It has now been 10 months and Vaughan-Spruce has still not been charged.
Speaking to The Telegraph, Vaughan-Spruce said, “Despite being fully vindicated multiple times after being wrongfully arrested for my thoughts, it’s unbelievable that I have been repeatedly interrogated and harassed by police for silently praying in that area, and yet again find myself under a lengthy investigation.
“Silent prayer cannot possibly be a crime – everyone has the right to freedom of thought. The punishment in my case has clearly been the process.”
It is believed that part of the reason for the delay may be uncertainty within the Crown Prosecution Service as to how to deal with what could well be a precedent-setting case.
Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF International, which is supporting Vaughan-Spruce, told The Telegraph, “The authorities are frozen in indecision about whether they’re really expected to prosecute somebody’s silent prayers. The protracted delays and persistent legal uncertainty surrounding the enforcement of so-called ‘buffer zones’ were entirely foreseeable.”
He added that the laws being used against Vaughan-Spruce present “serious constitutional difficulties” as they threaten legal sanction and even prison for thoughts and for traditional Christian viewpoints.
