A High Court judge has ruled that the abortion law is being used more liberally than Parliament intended.

In a review of the workings of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, initiated by Right To Life New Zealand, Justice Forrest Miller said there was a reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions.

Jusice Miller was delivering his judgment following a hearing at the High Court at Wellington in April.

Right to Life had claimed the Abortion Supervisory Committee had failed to properly interpret the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act, so "full regard is given to the rights of unborn children".

It sought to find the committee had failed its statutory duty to review the procedure for abortions and enquire into the circumstances in which consultants authorised abortions on mental health grounds.

It said the committee had failed to seek proper information on the mental health grounds from consultants.

It also sought to find the committee had failed in its duty to ensure adequate counselling facilities were available.

A registered practitioner can only lawfully carry out an abortion if they act under a certificate issued by two certifying consultants.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee said it had no power to "review or oversee the clinical decision-making process".

It denied New Zealand had "abortion on request", and said there was no evidence of this.

In his judgment Justice Miller found the Abortion Supervisory Committee had applied the abortion law more liberally than Parliament had intended.

"There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants," he said.

Justice Miller said the abortion law neither "confers or recognises" a legal right to life of the unborn child.

However, he said the Bill of Rights, through the abortion law, had recognised the unborn child had a "claim on the conscience of the community, and not merely that of the mother".

The legislation recognised consultants could certify abortions "only where they believe, in good faith, that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother's life or health".

Justice Miller ruled the committee had comprehensive standards for counselling.

"I conclude that the legislation does not require that counsellors be independent of licensed institutions."

Justice Miller said the committee recognised counsellors should have a recognised qualification and should participate in regular supervision.

It also recognised that information should be provided to women about the options available, and that counsellors should be able to refer women to other agencies and counselling services.