New Judgment: R (Hodkin & Anor) v Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] UKSC 77
11 Wednesday Dec 2013
Matrix Legal Support Service New Judgments
Share it
On appeal from: [2012] EWHC 3635
The question in this appeal was whether a church of the Church of Scientology is recordable as a “place of meeting for religious worship” under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, s 2, with the effect that a valid ceremony of marriage can be performed there. The Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages stated that she was bound by the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R v Registrar General, ex parte Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697 to reject the appellant’s application to record such a church to marry in, as the authority held that Scientology did not involve “religious worship” since it did not involve “reverence or veneration of God or of a Supreme Being”, but rather instruction in a philosophy.
The appeal was unanimously allowed. Religion should not be confined to faiths involving a supreme deity, since to do so would exclude Buddhism, Jainism and others; and involve the Court in difficult theological territory. Religion could be described as a belief system going beyond sensory perception or scientific data, held by a group of adherents, which claims to explain mankind’s place in the universe, and to teach its adherents how they are to live their lives in conformity with the belief system. On this approach to religion, Scientology was clearly a religion. It followed that as the Church of Scientology held religious services its church is a “place of meeting for religious worship”.
For judgment, please download: [2013] UKSC 77
For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII
3 comments
John Wilson said:
12/12/2013 at 16:45
Perhaps it’s just me, but speaking as the average man on the ‘Clapham Omnibus’, this judgement seems wrong for a number of reasons.
1. In paragraph 15 the judges stated that in relation to the evidence in this case put forward by Mrs Wilks (the minister of the chapel), “Her evidence was not challenged and so may be taken as accurate for present purposes”.
But when and how did they advertise nationally, that anyone who wanted to challenge this claim could do so?
2. If you follow the link to the website above, you will find evidence of at least one BBC reporter who would surely have wanted to do so. Along with details of former members of the ‘Church’ who could have provided a balanced argument against their claims to being a true ‘religion’ at all.
3. In paragraph 19 of the decision, one of their stated beliefs is allegedly – “That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others”.
So, not only should they have no objection to my personal views on them being aired, but they could not have objected to the Court ensuring that former members of this alleged ‘church’, were given their rights to be heard either. So why does it seem that the Court has failed to comply with International Law, by effectively hearing only one side of the case?
Again the link above suggests that John Sweeney could have provided evidence which suggests that their methods are underhanded to say the least, and that the process of ‘group auditing’ is simply a method of controlling and brainwashing their ‘congregation’ using threats if necessary.
4. The interpretation of a ‘religion’ in our laws also seems to be unsound, and not compatible with International Human Rights. For example, haven’t the Supreme Court judiciary ever heard of the expression “Practice what you preach”?
So they should have heard from those who tried to leave this ‘church’ to enable themselves to know if they actually ‘practised what they preached’. Because they clearly don’t, from any evidence which even I have seen over several years. Does the Supreme Court judiciary not keep themselves abreast of the news, or watch TV before dealing with such cases?.
5. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (upon which the European Convention was merely loosely based), is the true source of all International Human Rights as it was declared as The International Bill of Human Rights in 1948.
It’s Article 18 stated that “this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief,”, and yet again the evidence which could and should have been before the Court would have proven that this cult does not allow people to leave their ‘circle’ without great difficulty and personal consequences.
Other so called ‘religions’ are guilty of this too, because our laws probably ignore the Universal Declaration and/or the entire International Bill of Human Rights which “entered into force” in 1976.
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which expanded on the original interpretation of this right to freedom of ‘religion’, also stated that “No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to
have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.”, which in this case could also have been shown to be one of the practices of the ‘Church of Scientology’ too.
So why aren’t all ‘Registered Religions’ first and foremost, required to respect The International Bill of Human Rights, before any of their claims are accepted? And why has evidence that they don’t even practice what they preach, been ignored by the Supreme Court of all people?
6. Article 14 of the aforementioned Covenant has also lumped Articles 10 & 11 of the Universal Declaration together. But the Human Rights Committee has issued a number of General Comments on the topics of the ‘Administration of Justice’ and ‘the Right to Equality’ before the courts and tribunals.
In one of those dated in 1984 they stated that “The provisions of article 14 apply to all courts and tribunals within the scope of that article whether ordinary or specialized.”. In a later paragraph they also said that, “The publicity of hearings is an important safeguard in the interest of the individual and of society at large”.
So why was there no recorded opposition to any of the claims made about this ‘religion’, and how could ignore opposite views possibly be compatible with this International Law?
In 2007, the same Committee also said that “Article 14
of the Covenant aims at ensuring the proper administration of justice”, which seems to be demonstratively absent in any UK Court, since they ignore The International Bill of Human Rights every day.
Yet this ‘compliance review’ Committee also said in 2007 that “Article 14 contains guarantees that States parties must respect, regardless of their legal traditions and their domestic law”. Whereas this decision seems to concentrate on domestic laws, some of which go back more than 100 years before The Universal Declaration was even envisaged.
So why hasn’t The Supreme Court recognized the fact that domestic laws, which themselves are incompatible with International Human Rights, must be ignored.
They should have ensured that all voices of dissent were given a “Fair and impartial hearing” and tested the alleged principles of this alleged religion, before granting them this appeal at all. They have seriously let down the general public yet again.
Consequently, I believe that this judgement itself is unsound as they didn’t comply with International Law, by hearing only one side of the case, and not allowing others to be heard on this matter.
The Court therefore needs to overturn it of its own volition, and have a proper hearing about this ‘cult’ before the State allows it to claim tax exemptions, which is all they are really concerned about.
We have enough tax evaders in the UK as it is, without the Supreme Court opening the floodgates to all sorts of foolish and unsubstantiated claims like this.
Hydorah said:
23/10/2016 at 19:47
You really seem to know your stuff. I agree that there wasn’t enough, if any, audible or visible backlash against this case, nor did it care to hear any of the arguments against the church of Scientology. It’s definitely a bit one-sided.
John Wilson said:
12/12/2013 at 17:15
Can I add that it seems that the website I wanted to refer to doesn’t appear in the text, so here it is now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9032000/9032278.stm
I’d also apologise for any stupid typing errors, which were unintended.