Image by The Lona Institute
A military veteran and father of two, Adam Smith-Connor, has been convicted for silently praying outside an abortion clinic in Bournemouth, in what has sparked significant debate regarding freedom of expression and thought. On October 16, 2024, Poole Magistrates Court sentenced Smith-Connor to a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £9,000 in prosecution costs.
The court ruled that Smith-Connor’s actions constituted “disapproval of abortion,” as his body language during the silent prayer—seen with bowed head and clasped hands—was interpreted as a breach of the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) established around the clinic.
Smith-Connor’s legal troubles began in November 2022 when he spent approximately three minutes praying for his deceased son outside the clinic. According to Alliance Defending Freedom UK (ADF UK), the organization advocating on his behalf, a local council officer questioned him about the nature of his prayers. Smith-Connor later received a fixed penalty notice for praying near the facility.
In the trial, Smith-Connor denied violating the PSPO, but District Judge Orla Austin ruled against him, describing his prayer as a “deliberate” act of disapproval toward abortion.
Following the verdict, Smith-Connor expressed his deep concern about the implications of the ruling, stating, “Today, the court has decided that certain thoughts—silent thoughts—can be illegal in the United Kingdom. That cannot be right.” He emphasized his dedication to protecting freedoms during his 20 years in the army reserves and his current roles in healthcare and church volunteering.
Jeremiah Igunnubole, legal counsel for ADF UK, characterized the ruling as a significant legal precedent, asserting, “A man has been convicted today because of the content of his thoughts—his prayers to God—on the public streets of England.” Igunnubole indicated that the organization would consider an appeal against the judgment.
Former Conservative MP Miriam Cates condemned the prosecution, stating, “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 thought crime.” She criticized the buffer zone regulations, arguing that they disproportionately target individuals for simply expressing their beliefs.
In response to the verdict, a spokesperson for Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole (BCP) Council defended the prosecution, stating it was not an abuse of the legal process. They reaffirmed the necessity of the PSPO, which aims to protect individuals accessing medical services at the British Pregnancy Advisory Clinic.
The case raises critical questions about the boundaries of free speech, religious expression, and the extent of public safety regulations, igniting discussions across the UK about the rights of individuals to express their beliefs in public spaces.
