Slow Climb to Justice

Although our constitution provides for the right to a speedy resolution of disputes, our judicial process cannot be successfully accused of being expeditious.

It is unfortunate that the agency responsible for the efficiency of the legal process is also primarily responsible for delays.

More than two-and-a-half years ago, in March 2022, we wrote to the Honourable and learned Attorney General. We simply asked him to tell us what our very old, inherited abortion law really meant. We pointed out that it seemed to conflict with several rights guaranteed in our modern constitution. Further, it also appeared inconsistent with international conventions that the government had ratified.

We waited patiently for four months. Then we sent a reminder.

In June, we eventually got a rather peculiar response. The AG explained that he was "unable to accede to our request" to clarify the law because to do so would be "to opine on a hypothetical."

Therefore, we undertook research to establish the social reality that the AG considered hypothetical and prepared our constitutional challenge.

We submitted our claim to the High Court in late April 2024. In early June 2024, the AG asked for 50 days to prepare the government's response. So, this time, the matter was no longer hypothetical.

Of course, those fifty days coincided with the Court's recess period. The AG, therefore, enjoyed even more time than he requested.

Yet, when we returned to Court in October, he asked for more time. There has been delay after delay.

We are due back in the High Court on Friday, November 29th, for another preliminary hearing. The Court will determine whether religious groups that oppose our challenge have "legal standing" to present their concerns to the Court.

We sincerely hope the Court permits them. We want the views of all interested parties to be fully aired and assessed, and we, The Climb to Justice. Although our constitution provides for the right to a speedy resolution of disputes, our judicial process cannot be successfully accused of being expeditious.

Unfortunately, the agency responsible for the efficiency of the legal process is also primarily responsible for delays.

More than two-and-a-half years ago, in March 2022, we wrote to the Honourable and learned Attorney General. We simply asked him to tell us what our very old, inherited abortion law meant. We pointed out that it seemed to conflict with several rights guaranteed in our modern constitution and with international conventions that the government had ratified.

We waited patiently for four months. Then we sent a reminder.

In June, we eventually got a rather peculiar response. The AG explained that he was "unable to accede to our request" to clarify the law because to do so would be "to opine on a hypothetical."

Therefore, we undertook research to establish the social reality that the AG considered hypothetical and prepared our constitutional challenge.

We submitted our claim to the High Court in late April 2024. In early June 2024, the AG asked for 50 days to prepare the government's response. So, this time, the matter was no longer hypothetical.

Of course, those fifty days coincided with the Court's recess period. The AG, therefore, enjoyed even more time than he requested.

Yet, when we returned to Court in October, he asked for more time. There has been delay after delay.

We are due back in the High Court on Friday, November 29th, for another preliminary hearing. The Court will determine whether religious groups that oppose our challenge have "legal standing" to present their concerns to the Court.

We sincerely hope the Court permits them. We want a full airing and assessment of the views of all interested parties. We don't want anyone to be excluded.

This is a long, steep mountain to climb. We climb for justice while the AG snoozes and delays.

We are pro-choice because we are pro-life.

Sincerely,

ASPIRE