The Third Child and the ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’…

The ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’ scored another ‘success’ recently, though only for women in N Ireland.

The Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) Act 1967 was copied word for word from the equivalent legislation in Great Britain. The Act was a revision of the law, a tidying-up, eliminating the previous classification of misdemeanour and felony, and introducing the concept of an ‘arrestable offence’.

The NI Act has a completely different Section 5, introduced specifically as anti-terrorist legislation. In this, it’s clear that if a person believes an offence has been committed, that person is required to notify the police (a ‘constable’); and failure to notify the police is a criminal offence. And it need only be a belief, no hard proof of wrong doing is required.

You might well think that this is a bit, well, esoteric. However, a section of women in N Ireland are now potentially affected by this. If a woman has a third (or subsequent) child, she may no longer claim Child Benefit for that child. However, there is an exception where the pregnancy was the result of rape.

Again, you might think that this is a noble aim, not to disadvantage the woman. It’s not necessary for there to be a trial and a conviction; it’s enough if an ‘advisor’ believes that the woman has been raped, and provides certification to this effect. And this is where the problems start.

Clearly, the woman believes she was raped and made pregnant, and her ‘advisor’ will accept and believe this, and the officials in the Benefit office will accept and believe the certification and make payment. But if the ‘advisor’ and the Benefits officer do not report this to the police, they become criminals  under Section 5 of the NI Act.

And the woman, if she does not report her belief that she was raped, may also be a criminal. And if the police come to know that there is a belief in a rape, it’s very likely that they will begin an investigation, potentially further criminalising the woman who, however inadvertently, has ‘perverted the course of justice’.

Here we have an example of a legal change producing a perverse effect, something I’m quite sure wasn’t at all intended or even envisaged; but what, if anything, can and will now be done?


Discover more from Slugger O'Toole

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

We are reader supported. Donate to keep Slugger lit!

For over 20 years, Slugger has been an independent place for debate and new ideas. We have published over 40,000 posts and over one and a half million comments on the site. Each month we have over 70,000 readers. All this we have accomplished with only volunteers we have never had any paid staff.

Slugger does not receive any funding, and we respect our readers, so we will never run intrusive ads or sponsored posts. Instead, we are reader-supported. Help us keep Slugger independent by becoming a friend of Slugger. While we run a tight ship and no one gets paid to write, we need money to help us cover our costs.

If you like what we do, we are asking you to consider giving a monthly donation of any amount, or you can give a one-off donation. Any amount is appreciated.