Royal College of Nursing v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] 2 WLR 279

Court: House of Lords

Facts: The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 criminalised abortion, but the Abortion Act 1967 allowed terminations by registered medical practitioners. Initially, abortions were surgical procedures performed by doctors. Advances in medicine enabled drug-based abortions, which were administered by nurses under a government circular. The Royal College of Nursing challenged the circular, arguing that it was unlawful for nurses to perform these procedures.

Issue: Whether nurses could lawfully perform drug-based abortions under doctor supervision, as interpreted through the mischief rule of statutory interpretation.

Held: The House of Lords ruled that nurses could lawfully conduct drug-based abortions under doctor supervision. The mischief rule was applied to determine that the Abortion Act 1967 aimed to address the problem of unsafe, backstreet abortions. Lord Diplock noted that the Act’s purpose was to widen lawful abortion grounds and ensure procedures were conducted skillfully and hygienically. The phrase “terminated by a registered medical practitioner” did not require the doctor’s direct involvement but required adherence to the doctor’s prescribed treatment.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Diplock stated that the Act’s intent was to remedy unsafe abortion practices and emphasized that interpreting “terminated by a registered medical practitioner” to include procedures performed under the supervision of a doctor was consistent with Parliament’s intention to broaden lawful abortion procedures.

💡Leveluplaw: The mischief rule of statutory interpretation helps courts understand legislative intent by addressing the problem the statute aims to solve. In this case, it allowed for an interpretation that included drug-based abortions performed by nurses under a doctor’s supervision, aligning with the broader goals of the Abortion Act 1967.