UK Archives

Dorset retiree faces trial for offering a conversation, amidst fears over “two-tier policing”

Livia Tossici-Bolt held a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want to” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth
Retired medical scientist to face trial 6^th MARCH; ADF UK supports legal defence
Christians raise concerns about “two-tier policing”

BOURNEMOUTH (6 February 2025) – A retired medical scientist from Bournemouth will face trial on 6^th March following charges relating to her charitable work supporting women in crisis pregnancies.

Livia Tossici-Bolt, 63, held a sign reading “here to talk, if you want to” near an abortion facility in Bournemouth. Several individuals approached her to take up her offer of a conversation about matters going on in their lives.

“There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this.”

- Livia Tossici-Bolt

Local authorities confronted Tossici-Bolt, alleging that she had breached a local abortion “buffer zone”, which bans “expression of approval or disapproval of abortion”. They issued a Fixed Penalty Notice, which Tossici-Bolt refused to pay, on the grounds that she did not breach the terms of the PSPO, and had the right, protected under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, to offer consensual conversations.

Tossici-Bolt will face trial at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 6th March 2025. ADF UK are supporting her legal defence.

“For several years now, I have been offering a helping hand to women who would like to consider other options to abortion, and pointing them to options where they can receive financial and practical support, if that’s what they would like.

“There’s nothing wrong with offering help. There’s nothing wrong with two adults engaging in a consensual conversation on the street. I shouldn’t be treated like a criminal just for this,” said Livia Tossici-Bolt, whose legal defence is being supported by ADF UK.

Right to conversation, and silent thought, on trial

In 2023, the UK government passed legislation in the Public Order Act to enforce censorial buffer zones around all abortion facilities, banning any form of “influence of a person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services.”

CPS Guidance released alongside the national legislation, which came into force in October 2024, explains that silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime; rather, that criminal actions must be “overt” to meet the threshold.

Yet, in November 2024, Christian army veteran Adam Smith-Connor was convicted for praying silently in his mind for a few minutes on public space across the road from the abortion facility in Bournemouth, where a local “buffer zone” had been enacted via a “Public Spaces Protection Order”. With support from ADF UK, he is appealing his conviction in July.

Concerns over "two-tier policing"

As a result of the arrests over silent prayer, Christians have raised concern about “two-tier policing” taking place in the UK – something which the Home Office have dismissed in a leaked memo as a “right-wing extremist narrative”.

This month, it was reported that shoplifting crimes have increased by 25% in the past year. Last year, it emerged that knife crime in the UK has increased by 80% in the past decade. Volunteers have questioned the focus of resources on clamping down on silent prayer, rather than tangible crimes.

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who was seen being arrested for her silent prayers in a viral video in 2022, said:

“The Home Office’s abrasive and outright dismissal of widespread concerns about “two-tier policing” runs contrary to the experience of countless everyday British people.

I have been arrested multiple times, faced an intrusive police investigation, and dragged into court – simply for standing silently on a public street nearby an abortion clinic, praying, imperceptibly, in the privacy of my mind. Meanwhile, how many true criminals roam the streets, unchecked? How many of the perpetrators of the grooming gangs were left unaccountable for their violent and despicable actions towards children?”

Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK, said:

“Under far-reaching and vaguely-written rules, we have seen volunteers like Livia criminalised simply for offering conversations to those in need; and others dragged through courts for praying, even silently, in their minds.

The principle of freedom of thought and speech must be defended both within and outside “buffer zones”. It’s unthinkable that as real crime is mounting, policing time and resources are being expended on peaceful individuals like Livia who simply and peacefully offered conversations. No genuinely free and democratic society criminalises it citizens for exercising their right to freedom of speech, especially when such speech is nothing more than a harmless and consensual conversation,” commented Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, who are supporting Tossici-Bolt’s legal defence.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

PICTURED: Liviai Tossici-Bolt; ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole; Adam Smith-Connor; Isabel Vaughan-Sprice

Appeal date set for Army Veteran convicted for silent prayer in “buffer zone”

Bournemouth Crown Court to hear silent prayer appeal, July 28th 2025
Recent CPS guidance clarifies that silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime in national abortion “buffer zones”

Bournemouth (29 January 2025) – The appeal date for the army veteran and father of two found “guilty” for praying silently near an abortion facility has been set for 28th July, 2025 – two and a half years following the three minutes of prayer which sparked legal action.

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council charged and prosecuted Adam Smith-Connor for breaking local “buffer zone” rules, following an interrogation by officers on “the nature of his prayers” when he stopped to pray for a few minutes near an abortion facility in November 2022.

“The government simply cannot be allowed to determine the content of thoughts and prayers, depending on where you’re standing."

- Adam Smith-Connor, convicted for praying silently in a "buffer zone"

The “guilty” verdict, issued on 16th October 2024, marked the first time in modern British history where a citizen has been criminalised on the basis of his thoughts.

Silent prayer “not necessarily” a crime, says CPS

Since Adam’s conviction, nationwide “buffer zones” legislation has been rolled out across the country, preventing anyone from “influencing” a person’s “decision to access” an abortion facility – but new CPS guidance clarifies that such a ban does “not necessarily” extend to silent prayer.

The CPS further noted that the activities of the accused must be “overt” to meet the threshold of criminality.

At the time of the alleged “offence”, Smith-Connor stood imperceptibly praying in his head for a few minutes, across the road from the abortion facility, with his back to the entrance in order to avoid the impression he was attempting to engage with anyone.

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Always unblock YouTube

Video footage shows Smith-Connor being questioned as to the “nature of his prayer” by officers, before being issued a fine.

Speaking about his decision to appeal, Adam Smith-Connor said:

“Surely a silent thought cannot be a crime. With support from ADF UK, I’m appealing my conviction. The government simply cannot be allowed to determine the content of thoughts and prayers, depending on where you’re standing.

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.”

Controversially, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council has already spent over £100,000 of public funds prosecuting Smith-Connor for his silent thoughts, for a charge with a maximum penalty of £1,000. This expense – including a high spend on a King’s Counsel– comes despite the Council being on the brink of bankruptcy for the past year.

The Court sentenced Smith-Connor to a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £9,000.

Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, who supported Adam’s case, said:

“The right to engage in silent prayer constitutes the most basic of human rights. It is protected robustly by international legal provisions relating to freedom of thought.

“Adam’s conviction was a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly. A failure to protect thought and peaceful speech anywhere creates a threat to these rights everywhere. Buffer zones or otherwise, we should uncompromisingly safeguard the rights on which our democracy is based. That’s why this appeal is incredibly important.”

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Adam Smith-Connor, Jeremiah Igunnubole (Legal Counsel for ADF UK)

Adam buffer zones UK

Why We Need to Champion the Life, Purpose, and Dignity of Every Person, Not Euthanasia or the UK Assisted Suicide Bill

UK Assisted Suicide Bill will be debated at the end of November.

Is there truly such a thing as ‘the right to die’ or ‘dying with dignity’ as euthanasia advocates claim?

Few issues cut to the heart of human dignity and ethics, like (voluntary and involuntary) euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Both continue to ignite intense global debate, raising critical ethical, legal, and societal questions that we must address.

While there’s a technical distinction—assisted suicide involves the patient self-administering a lethal substance rather than a medical practitioner—the outcome is the same. For simplicity, this article uses the terms interchangeably.

At its core, assisted suicide involves the killing of a human being, mostly under the banner of “compassion” and relief from suffering. However, as this article explores, the line between compassion and callousness in euthanasia is perilously thin.

Back in 1826, physician Carl Friedrich Marx asserted that a doctor should never intentionally hasten a patient’s death, whether out of compassion or external pressure. This view mirrored long-standing beliefs, particularly in Christian and Western societies, where assisted suicide was equated with murder and strictly forbidden.

This view shifted in the late 19th century as euthanasia movements gained traction. Fast forward to 2001 and 2002, when the Netherlands and Belgium became the first countries to legalise euthanasia, spurring a growing list of countries to follow suit. The UK, however, remains deeply divided, with a contentious assisted suicide bill currently under parliamentary debate.

The UK Assisted Suicide Bill

UK parliamentarians are set to vote on a new assisted suicide bill at the end of November. If passed, this catastrophic proposal—the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—would allow terminally ill people with an estimated prognosis of 6 months or less to end their own lives.

This bill inevitably raises a plethora of problems. While Kim Leadbeater MP, who proposed the legislation, has told the public that the bill includes strict safeguards, the reality is far more ambiguous. These safeguards can still contain flaws. Take the criteria that the patient must be within 6 months of the end of their life. How can that be reconciled with the copious research showing that doctors very often get this prognosis wrong?

The bill marks the first time that UK law would allow medical practitioners to actively end their patient’s life, redefining the boundaries of medical ethics and healthcare.

While two medical practitioners must sign off on allowing the patient to end their life—the second, “independent” practitioner is chosen by the first. If they refuse, the first may ask a second choice.

Notably, 90% of palliative care specialists in the UK oppose legalising euthanasia. This reflects the broader commitment among medical professionals to provide unwavering support and reassurance to patients rather than helping them to end their lives.

These specialists have seen that when patients receive compassionate, high-quality care, the desire to end their lives almost always fades. The concerns voiced by palliative care experts remind us that euthanasia, despite intentions, is not the compassionate solution it’s made out to be.

Historical Intellectual Reasoning for Euthanasia

The early euthanasia movement was shaped by several trains of thought.

One driving force was Utilitarianism, a philosophy that prioritises pleasure and the minimisation of pain. In this view, ending lives could be justified if it relieved suffering or contributed to a perceived greater good.

Another was Neo-Lockeanism, which posited that only those capable of rational thought should be considered full people. This perspective devalued the lives of those with mental health disorders or cognitive disabilities.

Then came Social Darwinism, a controversial offshoot of Darwin’s theory of evolution. It argued that humanity could be “improved” by selecting desirable traits and eliminating “undesirable” ones from the gene pool. This meant encouraging the procreation of the “fit” and preventing or ending the lives of those deemed “unfit”.

Charles Goddard, an early advocate of euthanasia, echoed these views. He suggested euthanasia for people he described as “idiots” lacking the capacity for joy or purpose. This was not a fringe idea in the early euthanasia movement—it was a foundational one, closely tied to the eugenics movement. Both saw Social Darwinism as justification for selecting which lives were worth living.

The most infamous application of these ideas was Nazi Germany’s eugenics program, which fully implemented euthanasia as a state policy. The program required the reporting of any disabled child under the age of three, many of whom were euthanised. By 1945, around 250,000 people were killed as part of this program, a troubling reality where ideological justifications for “purity” and “utility” led to these atrocities.

Euthanasia and the Nuremberg Trials

Reflecting on the roots of the Nazi euthanasia program, psychiatrist Leo Alexander noted in the New England Journal of Medicine that it all started with one troubling idea: the notion that certain lives were “not worthy of being lived”.

Initially, this idea was applied to the severely and chronically ill. But gradually, the net widened to include anyone deemed “socially unproductive”, ideologically undesirable, or racially “unwanted”. Alexander highlighted how this “infinitely small lever” of thinking—dismissing the value of certain lives—ultimately set the stage for the horrors that followed. Combined with a lack of respect for human dignity and compounded by economic pressures, this perspective enabled one of the 20th century’s darkest chapters.

Thankfully, the aftermath of World War II cast a long and damning shadow over the euthanasia movement. Public outrage surged, and rightfully so, as the world grappled with the reality of how easily the notion of “mercy” could be weaponised. What began as an ostensibly compassionate act for the incurably ill had devolved into a horrifying eugenics agenda, exposing the fragility of moral boundaries when life-and-death decisions are placed in human hands.

By the end of the war, the so-called pursuit of alleviating suffering had instead led to unspeakable suffering itself. The movement’s association with such widespread and calculated brutality revealed its susceptibility to abuse, eroding public trust. This highlighted the inherent dangers of presuming authority over the value of individual lives, leading to a sharp decline in the movement’s credibility and support.

Today’s Arguments for Assisted Suicide

Economic Factors

Historically, some proponents have openly linked euthanasia to economic concerns. Jacques Attali, a prominent European statesman, once argued that as people age beyond their productive years, they become costly for society, suggesting that euthanasia could be a necessary tool for future economies.

Similarly, Baroness Mary Warnock, a major figure in British politics, framed euthanasia as a rational choice for those who feel they are a burden on their families or the state, even suggesting a moral obligation to consider it.

Today, explicit economic arguments are rare and mostly hidden. However, we must stay aware that economic concerns remain a powerful factor. While most advocates of euthanasia are motivated by supposed compassion, the practice can still be influenced by economic interests. As the taxpayer base shrinks and the elderly population continues to grow, the financial pressures to offer or even encourage euthanasia will likely intensify.

In fact, economic influences on euthanasia are already visible. In Oregon, for instance, financial constraints have been cited as a reason for choosing euthanasia. In some jurisdictions, the practice has even created a pathway for organ harvesting.

As these trends develop, the risk of economic pressures overtaking compassionate motives in the practice of euthanasia is a very real and pressing concern.

Compassion as Motivation

Another angle, and probably the most supported one, is compassion. But compassion doesn’t involve supporting someone’s decision to end their life. If a healthy friend were contemplating suicide, we wouldn’t consider it compassionate to assist them. Instead, we would do everything possible to remind them of their worth, showing them that their life has dignity and purpose. True compassion involves guiding someone back from the edge, not pushing them over it.

Even if someone accepts the flawed premise that euthanasia can be “compassionate”, legalised euthanasia brings broader consequences. Thousands of people may feel pressured to end their lives—not out of personal choice, but because they feel they are a burden or because the state finds it less costly than providing care.

What may appear compassionate to some can, in practice, result in far-reaching and profoundly uncompassionate consequences for many.

And if we use compassion to justify euthanasia, where does that rationale end? Why should it only apply to those who request it? Shouldn’t it also include involuntary euthanasia for children or disabled individuals who are suffering, as permitted under regulations in the Netherlands?

This slippery slope shows that once euthanasia is allowed, limiting or strictly regulating it becomes increasingly difficult. What begins as compassion risks becoming a doorway to decisions that erode the very dignity and respect for life that compassion aims to uphold.

Autonomy as an Argument

We must first ask: why is autonomy important, and is it the ultimate value, outweighing all others? If autonomy were absolute, euthanasia would need to be permitted in all cases—for anyone, at any time, in any condition—simply because they choose it. Yet, most people reasonably feel troubled with such an unrestricted approach.

Even strong advocates of euthanasia usually argue for limits—no euthanasia for children, healthy people, or people with certain mental disorders, for instance. Yet, if autonomy is the sole justification, these boundaries become difficult to defend. Moreover, increasing one person’s autonomy can, in some cases, restrict the autonomy of others.

Evidence from Oregon shows that over half of euthanasia requests cite feelings of being a burden as a primary reason. This highlights how legalised euthanasia can undermine the authority of those who are vulnerable to outside pressure. Assisted suicide risks creating subtle (or explicit) pressure on people, especially those with serious illnesses, to choose death over costly care, effectively diminishing autonomy rather than preserving it. There is a high risk that the “right to die” could evolve into a perceived duty to.

Furthermore, we often limit autonomy in areas where it might lead to exploitation or where vulnerable people might feel forced into choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. We restrict autonomy to prevent self-harm or degradation; we never permit people to randomly amputate their limbs, even if they choose or want to.

A Look Around the World

In countries where assisted suicide is legal, there’s a suggestion that not all lives are equal—some lives are seen as “worthy” while others, particularly those of the vulnerable, are seen as expendable, building on the early intellectual bases for euthanasia. Let’s look at the Netherlands and Belgium, for example.

The Netherlands faces criticism for insufficient palliative care. In contrast, the UK, which has resisted euthanasia for many years, has significantly improved the quality of life for patients who, in other countries, might instead have been steered toward euthanasia.

In these countries, the boundaries of assisted suicide have expanded over time. People suffering from mental health disorders such as depression, schizophrenia and anorexia nervosa are now eligible for euthanasia.

The age criteria for euthanasia have also broadened. In Belgium, children of any age can request euthanasia if they are deemed capable of understanding their decision. Similarly, the Netherlands allows euthanasia for children aged 12 and older and is discussing the possibility of lowering this age threshold further. In the Netherlands, the ‘Groningen Protocol’ allows for the euthanasia of ill newborns. And there is now momentum toward allowing euthanasia for anyone over a certain age who feels their life is “complete”.

This shift in the Netherlands suggests a growing acceptance of euthanasia based not on medical need, but on subjective quality-of-life judgments that devalue the natural aging process and erode respect for the sanctity of life. There have also been cases where transgender people were granted euthanasia due to psychological distress, either before or after “transitioning”. This shows how the criteria of these laws can quickly expand to include anyone.

Conclusion: Euthanasia Should Never Be Legalised

As these trends illustrate, the logic of assisted suicide opens the door to a progression of ever-widening boundaries, which puts many at risk, regardless of age, gender, or ability. While supporters of euthanasia argue for the compassionate choice, the real-world consequences reveal a troubling trajectory that risks prioritising economic and social interests over inherent human dignity, equality, and life.

Will you write to your MP to ask them to say NO to assisted suicide and support the lives of the vulnerable?

Contact your MP quickly and easily using Right to Life’s handy tool.

assisted suicide Euthanasia Right to life UK united kingdom

‘Tsunami of censorship’: US congressional committee criticises UK’s abortion centre ‘buffer zones’ and online censorship

Influential committee makes intervention on alarming state of free speech in UK and Europe
Abortion centre ‘buffer zones’ and Online Safety Act in UK criticised

LONDON (22 November 2024) – An influential US congressional committee has criticised abortion centre “buffer zones” and the Online Safety Act in the UK as part of a “tsunami of censorship headed towards America”.

“This intervention from the House Judiciary Committee shows the UK is fast becoming notorious around the world for its censorious practices."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International

The X (Twitter) account for the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, who are the majority on the cross-party House of Representatives standing committee, called out this censorship in a thread on the alarming state of free speech in the UK and Europe.

The House Judiciary Committee interviewed Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, a Catholic woman who, supported by ADF International, recently won a payout of £13,000 from West Midlands Police for her two unlawful arrests for silently praying in an abortion centre “buffer zone” in Birmingham. ADF International is a faith-based legal advocacy organisation.

The committee’s X thread also critiqued the Online Safety Act for requiring “platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content”.

ADF International Executive Director Paul Coleman commented: “This intervention from the House Judiciary Committee shows the UK is fast becoming notorious around the world for its censorious practices.

“The incoming administration has made its commitment to free speech clear. If British politicians do not act to protect free speech, all other considerations aside, the UK will continue to suffer severe reputational harm on the world stage.”

Congressman Darrell Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said: “The growing attacks on free speech in the US – as well as the UK and EU – pose a direct threat to free people on both sides of the Atlantic. We know that legislation like the Online Safety Act that is said to combat ‘hate speech’ empowers regulators to censor free speech.

“Congressional Republicans understand that these threats to free speech are part of a broader global push by the Censorship Industrial Complex, which includes not only the EU, UK, and other nations but also malign actors here at home. We are committed to confronting this growing threat alongside the incoming Trump Administration to fight against these assaults on free speech within our borders and around the world.”

Reform UK Leader, Nigel Farage MP said: “The crackdown on free expression within the UK is becoming very sinister.

“Our police and government now withhold vital public information and we get censored simply for demanding the truth.

“I will continue to fight this.”

Critique of “buffer zones”

In its post, the House Judiciary GOP said: “What could posting a Bible verse or praying in front of an abortion clinic get you in Europe? A visit from the police—or worse…

“Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested and prosecuted for silently praying. She won her case. Yet still, she receives tickets and other forms of intimidation by police.”

The intervention came shortly after “buffer zones” were introduced around all abortion centres in England and Wales at the end of last month as part of the Public Order Act.

These ban “influencing” someone regarding abortion within 150 metres of an abortion facility. Thankfully, the Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance saying silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime and that there must be evidence of overt activity.

However, army veteran Adam Smith-Connor last month became the first person to be convicted for silent prayer in a “buffer zone”. With the support of ADF International, he is appealing his conviction.

Medical scientist Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt also faces trial for holding a sign in a “buffer zone” that said “Here to talk if you want”.

Critique of Online Safety Act and Digital Services Act

The House Judiciary GOP post critiqued UK online speech legislation and the Digital Services Act, an EU regulation: “Two major pieces of online speech legislation were passed in Europe over the last two years: The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) & the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA).

“Generally speaking, they require platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content… The UK’s laws mirror or go beyond the EU’s laws & include Orwellian practices to investigate speech.”

The committee’s post explained that because of the population and economic size of the UK and EU, regulations that censor speech in those areas can affect the US. For example, companies change their global policies to match anti-speech EU regulations.

Financial penalties also play a role: “What do platforms risk if they don’t comply? Penalties are as high as 6% of GLOBAL revenue from the EU’s DSA and 10% of GLOBAL revenue from the UK’s OSA. Billions of dollars for most major platforms.

“The Digital Services Act and Online Safety Act enable bureaucrats in the EU and the UK to put platforms out of business. So now, social media companies and their employees are strongly incentivized to overregulate speech on their platforms to preserve their business.

“The fight for free expression online is a global fight. The Biden-Harris Administration has stood by silently as foreign countries try to render the First Amendment obsolete.”

Dr Päivi Räsänen

The thread from the congressional committee also highlighted the case of Dr Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish parliamentarian on trial for a tweet expressing her Christian views on sexuality.

With the support of ADF International, Dr Räsänen faces trial at Finland’s Supreme Court for alleged “hate speech”, despite being unanimously acquitted of the charges on two previous occasions.

The House Judiciary GOP added: “If she [Dr Räsänen] loses her case, it could serve as a precedent for other European countries.

“Meaning posting a Bible verse could be soon considered ‘hate speech’ across the EU.”

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

censorship free speech Religious freedom UK

Army veteran confirms APPEAL as Crown Prosecution Service concede silent prayer “not necessarily” an offence

With legal support from ADF UK, Adam Smith-Connor will pursue an appeal against his conviction for praying silently in a “buffer zone”
CPS guidance on prosecuting “buffer zone” breaches requires evidence of “overt” activity
“Buffer zones” enacted TODAY around every abortion facility in England & Wales

LONDON (31 October 2024) – As the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) unveils guidance clarifying that silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime in an abortion “buffer zone”, the army veteran found “guilty” for praying silently near an abortion facility has announced today that he will pursue an appeal against his conviction, with support from ADF UK.

The guidance comes on the same day as the national rollout of a new “buffer zones” law – making it a crime to “influence a person’s decision to access…abortion services” within 150m of an abortion facility in England and Wales.

On 16th October, Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court convicted and sentenced Smith-Connor to a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £9,000.

In its decision, the court emphasised Adam’s known beliefs on abortion. The judge also noted that people may have perceived that Adam was praying because at one point his head may have been slightly bowed and his hands were clasped at his waist in an “at ease” posture.

The defence contend that Smith-Connor was not “overt” in his actions, as required by CPS guidance on prosecuting buffer zone breaches. His eyes were open and he stood in a “normal” standing position, in a public green across the road from the clinic, with his back to the entrance.

WATCH BELOW: Officers interrogate Adam as to the “nature of his prayers”:

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council charged and prosecuted Adam Smith-Connor for breaking locally-enforced “buffer zone” rules, following an interrogation by officers on “the nature of his prayers” when he stopped to pray silently for a few minutes near an abortion facility in November 2022.

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Always unblock YouTube

The government simply cannot be allowed to determine the content of thoughts and prayers.

- Adam Smith-Connor, convicted for praying silently in a "buffer zone"

The ruling, issued on 16th October 2024, marked the first time in modern British history that a citizen has been criminalised on the basis of his thoughts.

Speaking about his decision to pursue an appeal, Adam Smith-Connor said:

“Surely a silent thought cannot be a crime. With support from ADF UK, I’m pursuing an appeal against my conviction. The government simply cannot be allowed to determine the content of thoughts and prayers.

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.”

Public funding spent on prosecuting prayers

Controversially, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent over £100,000 of public funds prosecuting Smith-Connor for his silent thoughts, for a charge with a maximum penalty of £1,000. This expense – including instructing a King’s Counsel – comes despite the Council being on the brink of bankruptcy for the past year.

Commenting on the trial and the use of public funds ahead of the verdict, politician Miriam Cates said:

“This isn’t 1984, but 2024 – nobody should be on trial for the mere thoughts they hold in their mind. It’s outrageous that the local council are pouring taxpayer funding into prosecuting a thoughtcrime, at a time where resources are stretched thin. Buffer zone regulation are disproportionately wide, leaving innocent people vulnerable to prosecution merely for offering help, or simply holding their own beliefs.”

Buffer zones installed nationwide

Today, the UK government have enforced “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England and Wales – banning “influencing” someone’s decision to access abortion services within 150m of the building.

ADF UK has warned that the vague wording of the legislation could lead to more prosecutions over thoughts, or consensual conversations between adults.

In March 2023, Parliament voted down an amendment to explicitly protect silent prayer, leaving the wording of the law vague as to which activities might be construed as “influencing”. Today’s guidance from CPS confirms former Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s views that “silent prayer, within itself, is not unlawful.”

Speaking about the new law and accompanying CPS Guidance, enforced under the Public Order Act 2023, ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole said:

“We are glad that the CPS has confirmed that silent prayer is not necessarily a criminal offence and that there must be evidence of overt activity. This is commonsense and consistent with the absolute right to freedom of thought protected under domestic and international law. Previous Home Secretaries and the magistrates’ court have repeatedly concluded that silent prayer, within itself, cannot constitute a criminal offence. Now that CPS guidance has recognized the same, it is incumbent on police officers and local authorities to refrain from ideological and discriminatory interpretations which seek to criminalise prayer itself rather than overt conduct amounting to harassment and intimidation.

“It’s for this reason that we are glad to support Adam as he pursues an appeal of his conviction for praying silently without engaging anyone or being obtrusive in any way. This is a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly. A failure to protect thought and peaceful conduct anywhere creates a threat to these rights everywhere. Buffer zones or otherwise, we should uncompromisingly safeguard the rights on which our democracy is based.”

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK; Adam Smith-Connor

Adam buffer zones free speech UK

“Influencing” to be criminalised near abortion facilities from THURSDAY as government set to roll out “buffer zones” nationwide

Move comes weeks after first UK man convicted for silent prayer “thoughtcrime” in shock Bournemouth “buffer zone” ruling
Almost 60,000 people sign open letter asking Keir Starmer to protect freedom of thought
ADF UK, supporting the legal defence of four individuals prosecuted for praying or offering help in a “buffer zone”, raise concerns about freedom of speech and thought

LONDON (29 October 2024) – UK authorities will enforce “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England & Wales from Thursday 31st October.

Under the national law, “influencing” someone’s decision to “access” abortion services will become a crime within 150m of any abortion facility.

"The law is written so vaguely that peaceful, consensual conversations, or even silent thoughts, could be made illegal on certain streets of England."

- Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK

The vague wording of the law has drawn criticism from free speech advocates who fear it will be used to crack down on innocent, consensual conversation between adults – or even silent prayers.

Almost 60,000 people have signed a letter of concern to Keir Starmer, highlighting worrying prosecutions on account of silent prayers in local “buffer zones”, and asking that the government act to protect freedom of thought.

In anticipation of the new law, Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, said:

“We all stand against harassment and intimidation. But the Public Order Act goes much further by banning “influencing”. Could this apply to the advice given by a parent? A concerned word from a friend? Information made available through a crisis pregnancy volunteer? The law is written so vaguely that peaceful, consensual conversations or even silent thoughts could be made illegal on certain streets of England. We have already seen the prosecution of individuals like Adam Smith-Connor, who only stopped to pray in his mind for a few minutes, under these censorial and far-reaching “buffer zone” rules.

“The right to hold a consensual conversation, or engage in silent prayer, constitute the most basic of human rights. They are protected robustly by international legal provisions relating to freedom of thought and speech. The entire premise of censorial buffer zone legislation is that women should be able to choose to access abortion without hindrance. The legal elephant in the room should be obvious to see. If the law states that a woman can choose to abort their unborn child without hindrance, even the “hindrance” of lawful alternatives to abortion, how can the law criminalise women when they choose to engage in lawful, harmless and consensual conversations?

“This is a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly. A failure to protect thought and peaceful speech anywhere creates a threat to these rights everywhere. Buffer zones or otherwise, we should uncompromisingly safeguard the rights on which our democracy is based.”

Policing Thought

Last year, charitable volunteer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested twice for the silent prayers she held in her mind. After being found innocent at trial, Vaughan-Spruce later received a police payout on account of her wrongful arrests.

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Always unblock YouTube

Reflecting on the new laws being enforced on October 31st, Vaughan-Spruce said:

“Having been arrested, tried, and dragged through the legal system for months on account of my silent prayer – only to be found innocent and receive a payout for my unlawful arrest – it’s deeply concerning to see vaguely-worded legislation come in which could punish people like me who are just there to help, to talk peacefully, or to pray. The government should urgently clarify that consensual conversations between adults – and silent thoughts and prayers – are protected in domestic and international law. This isn’t 1984 – we mustn’t police thought on the streets of Britain.”

Criminalising Help

Women who have benefited from the presence of pro-life volunteers standing near abortion facilities have formed a campaign group, “Be Here For Me”, asking for crisis pregnancy support groups to be protected from criminalisation in “buffer zones”.

"Removing the option to receive help to keep a child in case we feel offended is deeply patronising."

- Alina Dulgheriu, who benefited from the help of pro-life volunteers near an abortion facility

Alina Dulgheriu, who received help to continue her pregnancy after recieving a leaflet from a pro-life volunteer on the public street near an abortion facility, said:

“It is worrying that we will consider denying vulnerable woman access to potential life-changing information – especially when facing one of the most challenging decision of their lives that could have lasting ramification on their mental and physical health.

“Removing the option to receive help to keep a child in case we feel offended is deeply patronising and assumes that women can’t make a decision for ourselves or that we might choose the wrong option.

My case is not a one-off. There are many hundreds of women just like me who have benefitted from this support. Yet we are all too often ignored.”

Convicted for a Prayer

The rollout of the new law, which was passed under the Conservative Government’s watch as part of the Public Order Act 2023, comes just weeks after the first man was convicted for a “thoughtcrime” inside a local buffer zone in modern British history.

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council charged Adam Smith-Connor, a military veteran and father of two, following an interrogation by officers on “the nature of his prayers” when he stopped to pray for a few minutes near an abortion facility in November 2022.

The Court sentenced Smith-Connor to a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £9,000.

Despite battling bankruptcy warnings and being forced to cut “all non-essential spending”, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent more than £100,000 on legal fees to prosecute the offence, which carries a maximum penalty of £1,000.

Responding to the ruling, Smith-Connor stated:

“Today, the court has decided that certain thoughts – silent thoughts – can be illegal in the United Kingdom. That cannot be right. All I did was pray to God, in the privacy of my own mind – and yet I stand convicted as a criminal?

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.”

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Jeremiah Igunnubole; Isabel Vaughan-Spruce; Adam Smith-Connor; Alina Dulgheriu with her daughter

Adam buffer zones freedom of speech Isabel Right to life UK

Almost 60,000 signatories ask Keir Starmer to protect freedom of thought, as army veteran prosecuted for silent prayer

Public letter to PM pleads: “act urgently to ensure that thought is never buffered, censored or criminalised.”
Army veteran convicted for silently praying near abortion facility last week
Government set to roll out censorial “buffer zones” around every abortion facility from 31st October

LONDON (25th October 2024) – 57,900 members of the public have signed an open letter to Keir Starmer in light of an army veteran being prosecuted for his silent prayers.

The letter, addressed to the UK Prime Minister, reads: “Freedom of thought is our most basic and precious of rights – and has long been recognised in British law and every major human rights document from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights onwards.”

The letter highlights the plight of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, who received a £13,000 payout from West Midlands Police after being unlawfully arrested twice for imperceptibly praying in her head in a Birmingham “buffer zone”.

"A failure to protect thought and peaceful speech anywhere, creates a threat to these rights everywhere."

- Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK

Also noted is the case of Livia Tossici-Bolt, who will face trial in March 2025 for inviting consensual conversation in the buffer zone by holding a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want”.

Father Sean Gough is also highlighted, having been fully acquitted of all charges after facing trial for praying while holding a sign near a Birmingham abortion facility reading “praying for freedom of speech”, and having a small pro-life sticker on his parked car inside the buffer zone.

The letter further references army veteran Adam-Smith Connor, who was found guilty last week for praying silently in his head near an abortion facility in the first “thoughtcrime” conviction of modern British history. Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent over £100,000 of public funds prosecuting the father of two, hiring a Kings Council, despite being on the brink of bankruptcy.

A slippery slope of censorship

Christian legal charity ADF UK supported the defence of all four individuals prosecuted on the basis of their silent prayers in abortion “buffer zone” areas.

ADF UK legal counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole explained that the different outcomes in each case represent a “profound and troubling lack of clarity in the law, and an undue subjectivity allowing individual officers and local authorities to determine whether silent prayer can be considered a crime on any given day.”

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Always unblock YouTube

Alluding to recent fears regarding “two-tier policing” in the UK, where those with conservative viewpoints are disproportionately censored and punished for voicing their opinions, the letter continues:

“The slippery slope is clear; if the criminal law requires us to refrain from ‘offensive’ thoughts anywhere, there is simply no logical endpoint. Today, it’s pro-life views that offend progressive social orthodoxies; tomorrow, it could be gender-critical views and gender-critical buffer zones. A genuinely democratic society must champion diversity of thought and the free and frank exchange of views.”

Silent prayer under threat of criminalisation

Vaughan-Spruce, Smith-Connor, Gough and Tossici-Bolt were all charged for allegedly breaching a “buffer zone”, implemented by five local council authorities via a “Public Spaces Protection Order”, which bans acts of “approval or disapproval” of abortion – but have been interpreted by officers to even include thoughts inside someone’s mind.

The UK government are set to roll out “buffer zone” legislation across the country from 31st October, making it a crime to “influence” anybody’s “decision to access…abortion services” within 150m of an abortion facility.

Free speech campaigners have raised concerns about the loose wording of this legislation, which could potentially be applied to criminalise friends and family who offer advice, or engage in consensual conversations about abortion, near the facility.

Commenting on the upcoming enforcement of national buffer zones, Jeremiah Igunnubole said:

“We all influence each other’s decisions all the time – be it through the advice of a parent, the concern of a friend, or the information made available through a charitable volunteer. The ability to peacefully exchange views is the lifeblood of democratic society.

“Yet the Public Order Act is written so vaguely that these everyday, peaceful, caring conversations could be made illegal on certain streets of England when it comes to discussing abortion. The lack of clarity in the law could result in many more citizens like Adam being interrogated or even charged for simply directing silent thoughts towards God.

“The right to hold a consensual conversation, or engage in silent prayer, constitute the most basic of human rights. They are protected robustly by international legal provisions relating to freedom of thought and speech.

“This is a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly. A failure to protect thought and peaceful speech anywhere creates a threat to these rights everywhere. Buffer zones or otherwise, we should uncompromisingly safeguard the rights on which our democracy is based.”

To read the public letter in full, click here.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: ADF UK Legal Counsel Jeremiah Igunnubole with individuals prosecuted for their silent prayers: Adam Smith-Connor; Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, Livia Tossici-Bolt, Fr. Sean Gough

Abortion buffer zones free speech Religious freedom UK

GUILTY: Army Vet convicted for praying silently near abortion facility

Army veteran and father of two, Adam Smith-Connor, found guilty of breaching censorial “buffer zone” with prayerful thoughts in his mind
“All I did was pray to God” – ADF UK supported legal defence, considering appeal

DORSET (16th October 2024) – A man charged for praying silently in an abortion “buffer zone” in Bournemouth has been found guilty in a shock ruling from Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court.

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council charged Adam Smith-Connor, a military veteran and father of two, following an interrogation by office on “the nature of his prayers” when he stopped to pray for a few minutes near an abortion facility in November 2022.

“Today, the court has decided that certain thoughts – silent thoughts – can be illegal in the United Kingdom.That cannot be right."

- Adam Smith-Connor, convicted for silently praying

The Court sentenced Smith-Connor to a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay prosecution costs of £9,000. A conditional discharge is a type of conviction that means Smith-Connor will only be sentenced if he is convicted of any future offences in the next two years.

In its decision, the court reasoned that his prayer amounted to “disapproval of abortion” because at one point his head was seen slightly bowed and his hands were clasped.

Responding to the ruling, Smith-Connor stated:

“Today, the court has decided that certain thoughts – silent thoughts – can be illegal in the United Kingdom. That cannot be right. All I did was pray to God, in the privacy of my own mind – and yet I stand convicted as a criminal?

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.”

Despite battling bankruptcy warnings and being forced to cut “all non-essential spending”, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent more than £90,000 on legal fees to prosecute the offence, which carries a maximum penalty of £1,000.

Interrogated for a prayer

Smith-Connor was confronted by officers who asked “what is the nature of your prayer?”, on a public green within a large “buffer zone” – an area covering several streets in the town – in which authorities have banned various expressions of pro-life or Christian belief, including through offering help to women in crisis pregnancies, or praying.

Read the full text of the Public Spaces Protection Order here.

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Always unblock YouTube

Commenting on the trial and the use of public funds ahead of the verdict, politician Miriam Cates said:

“This isn’t 1984, but 2024 – nobody should be on trial for the mere thoughts they hold in their mind. It’s outrageous that the local council are pouring taxpayer funding into prosecuting a thoughtcrime, at a time where resources are stretched thin. Buffer zone regulation are disproportionately wide, leaving innocent people vulnerable to prosecution merely for offering help, or simply holding their own beliefs.”

The defence contended that Adam’s prayerful thoughts and the fact that he held certain beliefs and opinions could not in themselves amount to a crime, particularly when he stood peacefully and silently on a public street.

Smith-Connor did not outwardly manifest his prayer by kneeling, speaking, or holding any signs. He made every effort to be out of the line of sight of the abortion facility, positioned behind a tree with his back to the facility and did not engage with any other person.

Responding to today’s ruling, Jeremiah Igunnubole, Legal Counsel for ADF UK, said:

“This is a legal turning point of immense proportions. A man has been convicted today because of the content of his thoughts – his prayers to God – on the public streets of England. We can hardly sink any lower in our neglect of basic fundamental freedoms of free speech and thought. We will look closely at the judgment and are considering options to appeal. Human rights are for all people – no matter their view on abortion.”

Five councils across the UK currently have active “buffer zones” or censorship zones banning prayer and offers of charitable help to women on the public streets near abortion facilities.

The UK Parliament voted to roll out “buffer zones” around every abortion facility in England & Wales as part of the Public Order Act 2023.

The Labour Government have announced plans to implement the zones on 31st October. Under the national law, “influencing” someone’s decision to “access” abortion services will become a crime.

Commenting on the upcoming enforcement of national buffer zones, Jeremiah Igunnubole said:

“We all influence each other’s decisions all the time – be it through the advice of a parent, the concern of a friend, or the information made available through a charitable volunteer. But the Public Order Act is written so vaguely that these everyday, peaceful, caring conversations could be made illegal on certain streets of England when it comes to discussing abortion.

“The right to hold a consensual conversation, or engage in silent prayer, are protected by international legal provisions on freedom of thought and speech. Yet the lack of clarity in the law could result in many more citizens like Adam being interrogated or even charged for simply directing silent thoughts towards God.

This is a watershed moment for British freedoms, and one the public must not take lightly.”

Commenting on the trial, Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh MP said:

“It is disgraceful that in Britain in 2024 someone can be put on trial for praying silently in his head. Unfortunately we have seen repeated cases of free speech under threat in the UK when it comes to the expression of Christian beliefs. To offer a prayer silently in the depths of your heart cannot be an offence. The government must clarify urgently that freedom of thought is protected as a basic human right.”

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured: Adam Smith-Connor; Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK

Abortion Adam buffer zones freedom of thought thoughtcrime UK

VERDICT TOMORROW: Army Vet on trial for silent prayer

Army veteran and father of two, Adam Smith-Connor, charged with breaching censorial “buffer zone” by holding prayerful thoughts in his mind
Verdict to be announced Wednesday 16th October, 10am, Poole Magistrates’ Court
UK government to roll out “buffer zones” nationwide 31st October, criminalising “influence” near abortion facilities

DORSET (15th October 2024) – A man charged and tried for praying silently in an abortion “buffer zone” in Bournemouth will hear his verdict tomorrow at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court.

Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council filed charges against Adam Smith-Connor, a military veteran and father of two, following an interrogation by office on “the nature of his prayers” when he stopped to pray for a few minutes near an abortion facility in November 2022.

Watch footage of the interrogation below:

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Always unblock YouTube

Smith-Connor was confronted by officers who asked, “what is the nature of your prayer?”, on a public green within a large “buffer zone” – an area covering several streets in the town – in which authorities have banned various expressions of pro-life or Christian belief, including through offering help to women in crisis pregnancies, or praying.

Read the full text of the Public Spaces Protection Order here.

Ahead of the verdict, Adam Smith-Connor stated:

“Nobody should be prosecuted for silent prayer. It is unfathomable that in an apparently free society, I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime.

“I served for 20 years in the army reserves, including a tour in Afghanistan, to protect the fundamental freedoms that this country is built upon. I continue that spirit of service as a health care professional and church volunteer. It troubles me greatly to see our freedoms eroded to the extent that thoughtcrimes are now being prosecuted in the UK.”

"I am being criminally charged on the basis of my silent thoughts, in the privacy of my own mind. It’s not different than being tried for a thoughtcrime."

- Adam Smith-Connor, military veteran on trial for silent prayer

Despite battling bankruptcy warnings and being forced to cut “all non-essential spending”, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council spent more than £90,000 on legal fees to prosecute the offence, which carries a maximum penalty of £1,000.

Commenting on the trial and the use of public funds, former MP Miriam Cates said:

“This isn’t 1984, but 2024 – nobody should be on trial for the mere thoughts they hold in their mind. It’s outrageous that the local council are pouring taxpayer funding into prosecuting a thoughtcrime, at a time where resources are stretched thin. Buffer zone regulation are disproportionately wide, leaving innocent people vulnerable to prosecution merely for offering help, or simply holding their own beliefs.”

Smith-Connor did not outwardly manifest his prayer by kneeling, speaking, or holding any signs to indicate his outer thoughts. He made every effort to be out of the line of sight of the abortion facility, positioned behind a tree with his back to the clinic and did not engage with any passersby.

Commenting on the trial, Father of the House Sir Edward Leigh MP said:

“It is disgraceful that in Britain in 2024 someone can be put on trial for praying silently in his head. Unfortunately we have seen repeated cases of free speech under threat in the UK when it comes to the expression of Christian beliefs. To offer a prayer silently in the depths of your heart cannot be an offence. The government must clarify urgently that freedom of thought is protected as a basic human right.”

A national roll-out of "buffer zones" - 31st October