The court concluded that while the alter ego test was met, it was not shown that the electronic filing requirement interferes with Oxenham's manifestation of his religion or belief. His objections relate to the amount of CO2 created by the Internet and its impact on climate change. However Oxenham was willing to use the Internet for some purposes. The court concluded:
... it was [Oxenham's] belief that the internet should not be used save where he judged it economically necessary to do so.... [T]hat belief does not attain a level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance such that it should be protected. This is because his belief ... is not so strongly held that he will make economic sacrifices for it; further, [Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights] cannot have been intended to protect a belief system which allows the practitioner to pick and chose when it suits him to adhere to his principles as that would amount to allowing people to pick and choose when they can be compelled to obey the law.
Law & Religion UK has more on the case.