A woman cleared of having an illegal abortion is planning to file a complaint with the police, prosecutors and the NHS over how she was treated.
Nicola Packer told the BBC her situation “could have been handled much more compassionately” and that what she had been through makes her “feel sick”.
The 45-year-old was cleared by a jury last month of “unlawfully administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing” with the “intent to procure a miscarriage”.
She had taken prescribed abortion medicine when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks for taking such medication at home and beyond the legal abortion limit of 24 weeks.
She told jurors she did not realise she had been pregnant for more than 10 weeks.
Audio has since been shared with the BBC of a senior Metropolitan Police officer speaking at a meeting in the days after Ms Packer’s arrest, in which he shares “concerns” about “how the investigation has developed”.
The officer can be heard saying there are “definitely valid discussions, I think, to be had around whether that arrest, in the circumstances, was best for Nicola”.
He adds that criminalisation of abortions is “an uncomfortable area for police to be operating in” and is not “something that sits well with us, or that we have really much experience in at all”.
In an interview with the broadcaster Ms Packer said those involved in her case “need to be held accountable”.
She added: “It’s really making me feel sick – the way everything was handled. I did not need to go straight from the hospital to the police station. I could have gone home and recuperated for a couple of days.
“It just could have been handled much more compassionately, causing less trauma than they did.”
Ms Packer’s trial heard she took abortion medicine at home in November 2020 and later brought the foetus to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in a backpack.
She spent the night in hospital and was arrested the next day.
Consultant gynaecologist Jonathan Lord, who has cared for Ms Packer and now acts as her advocate, confirmed she plans to file a complaint with the Met Police, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the NHS over her treatment.
He was at the 2020 meeting and described it as “utterly shocking”.
Speaking about the BBC File on 4 Investigates programme, he said: “One of the many things that is so deeply unsettling about this documentary is the way the organisations (NHS, police, CPS) aren’t accepting any accountability for the harm they are causing, but are hiding behind the law to defend that they ‘did the right thing’.
“All of us make mistakes and errors of judgement, that’s forgivable. But failing to learn from them, and worse still trying to defend utterly contemptible actions that have caused such suffering, is suggestive of a toxic culture at the heart of these institutions.
“That’s why the law has to change as it is both driving this behaviour and acting as a shield to protect those who should know better.”
The case prompted calls for reform of the law, including from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (Rcog) which claimed the trial showed “just how outdated and harmful” current abortion law is.
The college has issued recommendations stating that healthcare professionals do not call the police or external agencies if a woman states or they suspect she might have sought to end her own pregnancy “unless she has given explicit consent to do so, or you consider it justified in her best interests”.
An amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill on decriminalisation in England and Wales is said to have the support of more than 60 cross-party MPs and backers hope for a vote on it as early as June.
Those backing the amendment, which states that “no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy”, insist it would not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting, including the time limit, the grounds for abortion or the requirement for the approval of two doctors.
A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said they are “mindful this case would have been incredibly difficult for Ms Packer” but that they had acted “impartially and without favour”.
The CPS had initially found there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a case against Ms Packer but police detectives requested a review of that decision, something the Met said “is not unusual and is standard practice to ensure all critical evidence is considered”.
The case went to trial following that review.
The Met spokesperson added: “We recognise the profound impact this investigation has had and we remain committed to carrying out our duties in a way that is fair and thorough.
A CPS spokesperson said prosecutors “recognise the profound strength of feeling these cases evoke but have a duty to apply laws passed by Parliament fairly and impartially”.
They added: “The role of the Crown Prosecution Service in this case was not to decide whether Nicola Packer’s actions were right or wrong; but to make a factual judgement about whether she knew she was beyond the legal limit when she procured an abortion.
“Prosecutors considered there was enough evidence to bring this case for a court to decide, and we respect the jury’s decision.”
Ms Packer also told the BBC she felt angry at midwives “for calling the police when they really didn’t have to”.
A Chelsea and Westminster Hospital spokesperson said: “At the time, our staff acted in line with the processes and guidance available to them. Their first priority, as in all cases, was to support and provide care to the patient.
“We remain committed to providing safe, respectful and person-centred care at all times, and will continue to reflect on points of learning from this case.”
Looking for more from MyLondon? Subscribe to our daily newsletters here for the latest and greatest updates from across London.
