����ý

Legislation to ban anti-abortion protests at health settings in Northern Ireland will not "go back to square one", the Supreme Court has been told.

In March, the Stormont Assembly voted for a bill to place "buffer zones" outside abortion clinics.

It is being challenged by NI's attorney general, Dame Brenda King.

She has asked the UK's highest court to decide if it "disproportionately interferes" with the rights of anti-abortion protesters.

Dame Brenda's intervention relates to a specific part of the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Northern Ireland) Bill, and whether it falls outside the assembly's "legislative competence".

The bill would make it an offence to protest against abortion within the 100m zones, directly argue or harass people who may be attending the clinics or to obstruct access to the premises in question.

But the "reasonable excuse" defence was left out of the legislation, when a majority of MLAs backed the bill earlier this year.

Reasonable excuse can be a defence to an offence under criminal law.

On Tuesday, counsel for the attorney general's office, Tony McGleenan QC, said as a result the bill did not provide a defence for someone who "did not know and had no reasonable way of knowing a protected person was in a safe access zone".

He argued that the current legislation breaches the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), relating to the articles on freedom of religion and expression.

'Political stance'

Mr McGleenan also suggested a "political stance" had been taken by some parties at Stormont when they voted to reject an amendment around "reasonable excuse".

In March, Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) leader Jim Allister proposed adding that provision into the bill.

Former Green Party MLA Clare Bailey, who drew up the legislation, had also supported it.

However, it did not pass as Sinn Féin, Alliance and the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) voted against the amendment.

The court was told that if it decides the bill must be changed retrospectively, there is a process to do so under the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

"At that stage the assembly can vote on a remedial amendment if there is one," said Mr McGleenan.

"We don't go back to square one with the bill, it doesn't start again. We go back to the legislative process on a distinct point, the assembly can vote on that point and the matter proceeds from there."

However, the court also heard that this could not happen until there is a functioning assembly again.

The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has refused to support the election of a Speaker to allow the assembly to operate, due to its ongoing protest over the Northern Ireland Protocol, part of the UK government's Brexit deal with the EU.

Mr McGleenan said the deadlock at Stormont was a "circumstantial matter" and that he hoped the situation could be resolved.

'Emotive matter'

In response, Lord Advocate of Scotland Dorothy Bain QC argued that interfering with rights relating to freedom of expression may be "justified", in order to protect personal autonomy of the rights of pregnant women.

She cited Article 8 of the ECHR, which guarantees a right to respect for private and family life.

Ms Bain said abortion was an "intensely personal, private and emotive matter".

She also suggested that the bill as drafted "properly addressed" the issue of legislative competence and could be further looked at by courts in individual cases as opposed to the Supreme Court being asked to decide.

The hearing will continue on Wednesday with judgement expected to be delivered later in the year.