He admitted her to St Mary's Hospital in June, informed authorities of his intention to perform the operation, carried it out, and then asked to be arrested.

Charged under section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for procuring an abortion, it was decided that the case should go to trial at the Old Bailey before a judge and jury.

[5] However, prosecutions for conducting abortions were common, particularly of medically untrained women who carried out the unsafe procedure for a small fee.

[7] Five years before the 1938 trial, Bourne had successfully stood by a Dr Avarne, who had been accused by pathologist Sir Bernard Spilsbury of performing an illegal abortion.

[8] On 27 April 1938, a 14-year-old girl had been raped by a group of Royal guardsmen at Horse Guards Parade near Whitehall and the assailants were subsequently sentenced at the Old Bailey.

[10] Through the Schools Care Committee, the girl came to the attention of Joan Malleson, a physician and member of the medico-legal counsel of the Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA).

[8] Morgan noted the case to be far from usual in that a well respected surgeon openly broke the law for reasons he thought good, and in so doing risked his own life imprisonment.

[8] After seeing the girl and receiving a letter of consent from her father, Bourne informed Dr P. C. F. Wingate, his resident obstetric officer, about the case.

[8] He confirmed the story, adding that he attended the abortion on 14 June, which was carried out under aseptic conditions and that she had been looked after by qualified medical staff.

[8] He informed the court of how the law stood on the matter of abortion, and reiterated the crime against the girl; one man had sexual intercourse with her while the other held her down.

[1][2] Attorney General Donald Sumervell, L. A. Byrne and Henry Elam represented the prosecution, while Bourne was defended by Thesiger and Roland Oliver.

[6] Bourne admitted that his experience of seeing the dangers of underage girls going through pregnancy did bias his opinion in this case, though it was performed in what was the agreed safest conditions at that time.

[13] William Gilliatt, an eminent gynaecologist assured the court of Bourne's competence in both deciding on a suitable case and performing the operation, and if put in similar situation he would have done the same.

[1] In the evidence of police surgeon, Jacob A. Gorsky, his examination findings from 27 April found the girl distressed with physical signs consistent with "violence and rape".

[1] If the doctor is of the opinion, on reasonable grounds and with adequate knowledge, that the probable consequence of the continuance of the pregnancy will be to make the woman a physical or mental wreck, the jury are entitled to take the view that the doctor is operating for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother...Macnaghten[7][16] Macnaghten asked the jury to answer not the question of whether Bourne performed the operation in good faith to preserve the girl's life, but whether Bourne's actions were "not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the girl.

[2][17] He recommended that the jury be prejudiced by the testimonies of Gorsky and Rees, and consider the girl's age, dangers of delivering a baby before physical maturity, and mental effect of the crime of rape of a child.

[1] Dubbed "the case of the horse with a green tail", the assault on the girl in April 1938 received widespread media coverage in England.

[5] Subsequently, the trial relating to the abortion received extensive interest from the public, medical professionals and legal establishments.

[23] To Bourne's disappointment the case was used in the construction of the Abortion Act of 1967, which he criticized for being lax, saying that "I would not have it believed that I have worked for a loose interpretation of the law", and in his opinion would result in "the greatest holocaust in history".