Transcript

REPORTER

This afternoon what's being called the Gillick judgement was overturned. The law lords voted by three to two that in exceptional circumstances, a doctor can prescribe contraceptives to an underage girl without her parents' consent. One Tory MP called it a day of shame. Mrs. Gillick says she has lost and lost badly. But the lords' ruling may only have refuelled the whole argument about sex and underage girls.

Last December, Mrs. Victoria Gillick won a unanimous decision from three appeal court judges.

VICTORIA GILLICK

It is the best Christmas present that they could possibly have been for all families, millions and millions and millions of them.

REPORTER

They held that a doctor could not prescribe contraceptives to girls under the age of 16 without their parents' consent. This afternoon outside the House of Lords, it was all very different after Mrs. Gillick had heard her arguments rejected by three law lords in uncompromising terms. Lord Fraser disputed the view that an underage girl has no rights in such matters. "The degree of parental control actually exercised over a particular child in practise varies considerably according to her understanding and intelligence, and it would be unrealistic for the courts not to recognise it."

Lord Scarman cast doubts on claims about the absolute nature of parents' rights over an underage girl. "Parental rights are derived from parental duty and exists so long as they're needed for the protection of the person and property of the child."

Lord Bridge, the third judge reversing the appeal court decision, held, "It could not be contrary to public policy to prescribe contraception where it was the only means of avoiding a wholly undesirable pregnancy."

Lord Brandon, the first dissenting opinion, fully backed Mrs. Gillick's views. He believed that anyone who promoted or facilitated underage sex could be guilty of a criminal offence. "It cannot make any difference that the person who promotes, encourages, or facilitates the commission of such an act is a parent, a doctor, or social worker."

Lord Templeman, the other dissenting opinion, cautioned against giving doctors a general discretion to prescribe contraceptives merely because an underage girl might have sex. "Such a discretion would enable any girl to obtain contraception on request by threatening to sleep with a man."

Public reaction has reflected the deep division in the lords themselves. Agencies involved in sexual counselling welcomed the ruling.

DIANE MUNDAY

I think it's a great victory for both common sense and the law. It shows that the law lords are in touch with how ordinary people lead their lives and how people behave and what is needed. That's not to say that anybody condones underage sex or thinks that girls shouldn't talk to them mothers.

JOHN DAWSON

We think this is a very wide-ranging judgement that will give a clear framework that will allow doctors to help patients. If they are unable to get the girl's consent to involve the parents, then this will allow doctors to make a judgement as to whether they should prescribe contraceptives or not.