The 100-Year Life Health Education and Government
Gloucestershire Police requested a 19-year-old woman’s hair be tested for abortion drugs after she was arrested for a suspected illegal abortion in 2018.
Sophie Harvey, now 25, was on trial at Gloucester Crown Court last week facing charges of procuring and administering a “poison” with intent to cause a miscarriage and perverting the course of justice.
Harvey denies taking an abortion drug after the 24-week legal limit and told the court the child was delivered naturally and stillborn in September 2018. The trial had to adjourn multiple times as Harvey became distressed as details of the birth were discussed.
Her partner Elliot Benham, 25, was also charged with perverting the course of justice. The pair previously pled guilty to concealing the birth of a child. On Monday, the jury in the trial was discharged for legal reasons and the pair were released on bail with a further mention hearing set for 14 June.
Tortoise reported last year that British police were testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.
On 30 August 2018, Harvey was told by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) that she was unable to have a legal termination as she was 28 weeks pregnant – not 16 weeks as she had thought.
In November 2018, Harvey and Benham were arrested at a family home and held in custody for over 19 hours when their accounts of how Harvey lost the baby differed.
The prosecution alleges that the teenage couple ordered a medical abortion kit online after BPAS told them that they could not have an abortion legally.
Harvey told police the baby was stillborn after Benham ordered the pills, but before they arrived. When police searched the house they found a medical abortion kit with the mifepristone pill missing – the one typically taken first.
When Harvey was arrested, a sample of her hair was taken and her phone was seized.
The court heard the hair was then tested for the presence of mifepristone and misoprostol – the two drugs needed for a medical abortion – by Cardiff-based Cansford Laboratories in early 2019.
According to a statement provided to the court by Cansford Laboratories, the abortion drugs were not detected in the hair sample. However, it was acknowledged that if Harvey had used chemical or heat treatment on the hair that could have led to the drugs not being detected.
When Tortoise asked Cansford Laboratories, which says it is the UK’s fastest drug and alcohol testing service, how often it had conducted tests for mifepristone and misoprostol for the police and courts it said it was “rare to see such requests” and to their knowledge “this has only been requested once in the past for a forensic matter, and only in hair”.
The court also heard that over six years Harvey was interviewed by police on four occasions, in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.
Heidi Stewart, CEO at BPAS, said: “Prosecuting women for ‘illegal’ abortion is never in the public interest. And it is certainly never in the public interest to subject anyone to six years of legal limbo.”
In the past four years, BPAS says it has received more than 30 demands from police to hand over women’s medical records.
“The current legal framework fails to acknowledge the complex, often desperate situations of women hauled before the court accused of seeking abortions outside the legal parameters”, Stewart said.
Although abortion was legalised in England and Wales in 1967, the procedure is still criminal in specific circumstances.
Under Section 58 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861 – which carries a maximum life sentence – it is illegal for a woman to take abortion pills with the intent to cause her own miscarriage after 24 weeks gestation.
MPs are expected to vote on 4 June on an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which would stop a woman facing jail for ending her own pregnancy under Section 58 in England and Wales.
Gloucestershire Police did not respond to a request for comment on the use of abortion drug testing and the length of the investigation “due to the pending criminal proceedings”.
A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson said: “We note the judge’s decision, which reinforces the importance of careful reporting. It would be inappropriate to comment further while proceedings remain active.”