Question to the Attorney General:

To ask the Attorney General, for what reasons the Crown Prosecution Service made the decision that it would not be in the public interest to pursue a private prosecution on gender abortion charges against Dr Prabha Sivaraman and Dr Palaniappan Rajmohan.

In accordance with the two stage test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the CPS carefully considered the evidence submitted by the private prosecutor both on its own and in addition to the material already in its possession from the earlier decision. In both cases the CPS concluded that there was no realistic prospect of conviction for the charge selected by the private prosecutor.

In addition the CPS considered whether both sets evidence taken together might be sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for any abortion offence. It was concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute an offence of using poison, instruments or any other means with intent to procure an abortion but that this was very finely balanced. It further concluded that the public interest considerations in not pursuing a prosecution outweighed those in favour for the same reasons as in 2013, most importantly the lack of professional guidance on how doctors should approach comparative risk assessments.

The full reasons for the decision are available on the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) website: http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_decision_to_stop_private_prosecutions_of_doctors_charged_with_abortion_offences/