Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security
The mischief rule allowed nurses to carry out part of an abortion procedure under a doctor's supervision.
Facts
Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 provided that a person is not guilty of an offence when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner, in certain circumstances. When the Act was passed, abortions were carried out surgically by doctors. Later, a new medical method was introduced, in which a doctor began the procedure but nurses administered the drugs that induced the termination, under the doctor's instructions. The Department of Health issued a circular saying that this was lawful. The Royal College of Nursing sought a declaration that it was not, because the termination was not carried out by a registered medical practitioner.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority of three to two, that the procedure was lawful. The mischief the Act was intended to remedy was the danger of back street abortions, and its purpose was to ensure that abortions were carried out safely in proper conditions under medical supervision. As long as a doctor decided on and was responsible for the procedure throughout, and remained in charge, the termination was carried out by a registered medical practitioner. Lord Wilberforce, dissenting, said that the court was rewriting the Act, and that its words required the doctor to carry out the termination personally.
Related cases on statutory interpretation
- Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7
- Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591
- Corkery v Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102
- Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61
- Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a
- Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586
- Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd [1997] ICR 254
- London and North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman [1946] AC 278
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
