A man stands silently on a public green in England. Officers approach for an interrogation, demanding, “what is the nature of your prayer?” 

Three minutes of silent prayer lead to two years of legal proceedings, three days of trial, and a criminal conviction.  

Orwell, or reality? 

If I hadn’t attended the reading of the verdict at Poole Magistrates’ Court yesterday, I would hardly believe this to be true. If Adam had been dressed in orange shouting about climate change; if he had been mercilessly calling for foreign wars; if he had been thinking thoughts about wildly heinous and murderous crimes, he would not have been found in breach of the law. 

But because he engaged in Christian prayer — lifting his thoughts to God — he now has a criminal record, and has been ordered to pay costs of £9000. It has cost the taxpayer even more. Despite being on the brink of bankruptcy, Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole Council — the local authority responsible for the prosecution — were only too happy to throw untold resources into making an example of Adam, hiring a King’s Counsel, and racking up disproportionate fees of over £100,000 for an offence with a maximum penalty of £1000.  

This might be the most expensive private thought of all time. 

Adam was convicted of breaching a local “buffer zone”, implemented by the council, which forbids “expressions of approval or disapproval” of abortion in a large area covering several streets around the clinic — including through prayer.  

Adam didn’t attempt to express any opinion. He even stood by a tree, with his back to the clinic, in order not to seem like he was trying to engage with anyone. But in the ruling, the judge emphasised that Adam said his head may have been “slightly bowed” and his hands were “clasped”. She determined that someone might have perceived he was praying. Yet no member of the public raised a complaint about Adam — it was staff at the abortion facility who called the authorities. His thoughts, obviously, were victimless.  

Why must the state crack down so hard on Christians like Adam? The father of two has served his country in the army reserves, including in Afghanistan. He’s a long-term charitable volunteer and active member of his community. He simply holds beliefs about abortion which are contrary to the government’s views. His beliefs are formed through personal experience — holding deep grief and regret for having paid for the abortion of his own child 24 years ago. 

We could be seeing much more of these kinds of prosecutions in the coming weeks and months. On 31st October, the government is set to roll out buffer zones banning “influencing” a person’s “decision to access abortion services”, covering several streets around every abortion facility in the country. What does it mean to “influence”? Can a friend influence another by offering help? Can a mother influence a daughter by asking if she’s sure she wants to go ahead with her appointment? The vague language could well capture the unintrusive, peaceful activities of silently praying people like Adam, or even basic, consensual conversations between friends and family members about a possible decision to have an abortion. 

Thoughts, and consensual discussions between adults, are not illegal — and shouldn’t be made so based on the government’s disapproval of the subject matter. The divisive reality of two-tier policing will haunt this government’s reign if the state continues to prosecute mere thought.