AB v Attorney-General

AB, a woman, sought to use the sperm of her deceased husband for artificial human reproduction. The Attorney-General opposed the application, arguing that the removal and use of the sperm were unlawful. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues were whether the Court had the jurisdiction to order the removal of the sperm, whether the removal was lawful under the Human Tissue Act 1982 (Victoria), and whether the use of the sperm was lawful under the Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Victoria). Additionally, the court needed to consider the relevance of the deceased man's lack of consent.

The court determined that the parens patriae jurisdiction allowed it to order the removal of the sperm, as it was in the best interests of any potential child that might result from the procedure. The court held that the removal of the sperm did not contravene the Human Tissue Act 1982 (Victoria), as the Act permits the removal of tissue for therapeutic purposes. The court also found that the use of the sperm was not prohibited by the Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Victoria), as the Act allows for the use of sperm from deceased individuals under certain conditions. However, the lack of consent from the deceased man was a significant factor, but the court concluded that the welfare of any potential child outweighed the deceased's lack of consent.

The court ruled in favour of AB, allowing the use of her deceased husband's sperm for artificial human reproduction. The court acknowledged the ethical considerations involved but determined that the welfare of the potential child was paramount. The final orders permitted the use of the deceased man's sperm for the intended purpose, subject to the provisions of the Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Victoria).