British Court Holds Jehovah's Witness Parent Body Vicariously Liable For Rape By Elder

 In Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. BXB,(EWCA, March 15, 22021), Britain's Court of Appeals upheld a trial court's conclusion that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and the Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses were vicariously liable for the rape of a woman congregant by a church elder. Justice Davies said in part:

Elders were integral to the organisation, the nature of their role was directly controlled by it and by its structure. The judge was entitled to conclude that the relationship between elders and the Jehovah's Witnesses was one that could be capable of giving rise to vicarious liability....

UK Human Rights blog has a long analysis of the decision.

British Court Upholds Convictions of Stonehenge Protesters

In Halcrow v. Crown Prosecution Service, (EWHC, March 10, 2021), the England and Wales High Court held that the religious freedom rights of pagan and Druid protesters at Stonehenge were not infringed when they were convicted of violating restrictions on entry to the stone circle in violation of provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Stonehenge Regulations. The court said in part:

[T]he removal of restrictions on access to the stone circle because the appellants turned up and wanted access to the stone circle to protest and exercise religious freedoms, would not strike a fair balance between the important rights of the individual appellants and the general interest of the community to see Stonehenge preserved for present and future generations. This is because it would have meant in practice that access to the stone circle would have had to be lifted as and when any person chose to walk into the stone circle, so long as they were protesting or exercising religious rights. Such access would inevitably have an adverse effect on Stonehenge to the detriment of current and future generations. Therefore the interference on the specific occasions with the appellants' rights under articles 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] was justifiable and proportionate.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

British Report Issued On Child Sex Abuse Response By Catholic Church

In Britain on Tuesday the government-authorized Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse published its 154-page Investigation Report on the Roman Catholic Church (full text) (press release announcing the report). The Report says in part: 

As we have said previously, faith organisations are marked out from most other institutions by their explicit moral purpose. The Roman Catholic Church is no different. In the context of the sexual abuse of children, that moral purpose was betrayed over decades by those in the Church who perpetrated this abuse and those who turned a blind eye to it. The Church’s neglect of the physical, emotional and spiritual well-being of children and young people in favour of protecting its reputation was in conflict with its mission of love and care for the innocent and vulnerable.

The Bishops' Conference of England and Wales issued a statement welcoming the report. Law & Religion UK has more on the Report.

Britain Asks For Comment On Reform of Marriage Law

Britain's Law Commission last week issued a 458-page Consultation Paper on Weddings Law (full text). The document titled Getting Married, proposes for public comment significant changes in laws relating to marriage in England and Wales. The document explains:

1.3 Weddings law in England and Wales is in desperate need of reform.

1.4 The law is ancient, with most of the current rules dating from the 18th and 19th centuries. The rules were devised at a time when virtually everyone lived, married and died within a single community, and when most people shared the same faith and beliefs; indeed, religion would have been the dominating force in most people’s lives. Weddings today are still governed by this system. The law is based on a way of life that bears little resemblance to life in England and Wales today.

1.5 Unsurprisingly, then, the law does not work for many. It restricts how couples are permitted to celebrate their weddings, for historical rather than current policy reasons.

3.4 ...[T]he scheme we provisionally propose is based on regulation of the officiant. That would mark a significant shift in focus from the current law, under which regulation is generally based around the building in which the wedding takes place. With very few exceptions, under our proposed scheme, the same rules would apply to all weddings. Again, that is different to the current law ... under which different rules often apply to Anglican weddings, Jewish and Quaker weddings, other religious weddings, to civil weddings that take place in a register office, and to civil weddings that take place on approved premises.

Law & Religion UK reports on these developments.

British Court Says Foster Care Agency Can Serve Only Christians, But Cannot Exclude Gay Couples

In Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Service Ltd. v. Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills, (England & Wales High Ct., July 7, 2020), a British judge ruled that a Christian adoption and foster care agency does not violate the Equality Act or the European Convention on Human Rights by recruiting only Evangelical Christians to be foster carers. However it does violate both the Equality Act and the Convention when it refuses to place children with Evangelical Christian same-sex couples. Christian News reports on the decision.

British Pastors Sue Challenging Government COVID-19 Orders Which Closed Churches

In Britain, a group of 26 Christian pastors and activists have filed suit challenging the closure of churches as part of the response to COVID-19, even though the government has allowed reopening of churches as of July 4.  The complaint (full text) in The Queen on application of Omooba v. Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, (QB, filed 6/23/2020), contends in part:

The Claimants do not for a moment suggest that churches should have continued to operate as before notwithstanding the Coronavirus epidemic. Rather, the Claimants’ concern is that, as a matter of principle, the imposition of appropriate anti-epidemic measures in the Church is ultimately a matter for Church authorities rather than secular state authorities.

Christian Concern issued a press release announcing the filing. Free Thinker blog has additional reporting.

Christian Group Challenges England's Liberalization of Abortion Rules In COVID-19 Crisis

On March 30, Britain's Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as part of the country's COVID-19 restrictions, approved a temporary rule allowing women seeking a non-surgical, medical abortion to take both Mifepristone and Misoprostol at home, following a remote consultation, instead of having to go to a clinic. Christian Concern filed a challenge to the new rule.  After the challenge was rejected, Christian Concern sought to have the High Court of Justice to allow judicial review of the challenges to the new rule. In The Queen v. Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, (High Ct., May __, 2020), a two judge panel, after a May 19 hearing, in a draft opinion refused permission to bring the claim for judicial review. Christian concern is appealing the ruling. Christian Concern has more information on the case. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

British Government Task Force To Develop Rules For Reopening of Houses of Worship

In Britain last Friday, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced a new interfaith task force to develop a plan for the phased and safe reopening of places of worship. According to the release:

No place of worship will be able to reopen before a final decision by the government and the accompanying change to the legal position in the published regulations. Faith organisations will be able to reopen at a slower pace if they wish.

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

Britain Moves To Coronavirus Closures, Including Churches

Yesterday in Britain, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced stay-at-home restrictions for the country to combat the spread of COVID-19. He said in part:

To ensure compliance with the Government’s instruction to stay at home, we will immediately: .... we’ll stop all social events​, including weddings, baptisms and other ceremonies, but excluding funerals.

The Church of England quickly announced that all of its churches would close immediately. [Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

British Tribunal Denies Asylum To Disingenuous Iranian Convert To Christianity

Britain's appellate court that reviews decisions on visa and asylum applications and the right to enter or stay in the UK-- the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber-- has recently issued an interesting decision on how to treat a citizen of Iran who disingenuously converts from Islam to Christianity in Britain in order to create a basis for an asylum claim. In PS (Iran) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (UKUT IAC, Feb. 20, 2020), the court concluded that such aperson does not run a real risk of persecution upon return to Iran, and therefore is not entitled to asylum in the UK. the court said in part:

PS has been out of Iran since 2013; he has claimed asylum on at least two occasions, variously asserting fear as a result of being caught up in the green movement protests, ‘honour’ based violence and latterly on the basis that he had converted to Christianity; he attended church between May 2015 and sometime in 2016 and was baptised after he had been going to that church for about two weeks; he has no known contact with the authorities prior to leaving Iran; he has no known connection with any persons of interest, nor any adverse social media content to be concerned about. He has no known connection with any organisation which could be connected by the Iranian government to the house church movement.  He may be asked to sign an undertaking promising that he will not undertake any Christian activities. There is no reason why PS would refuse. We find that he is likely to be judged to present a negligible risk to the security of Iran. He will be released fairly quickly and we are not satisfied that there is any risk of ill-treatment. PS may be placed under surveillance. Once the authorities are satisfied that he is not attending house church or attempting to contact known Christians he will be of no further interest to the authorities.  Accordingly, we find that PS does not face a real risk of persecution upon return to Iran and his appeal is dismissed. 

The Tribunal also issued a new Country Guidance based on this case. Law & Religion UK reports on the case at greater length.

British Court Refuses Financial Support Orders For Non-Complying Religious Marriage Ceremonies

Under Britain's Matrimonial Causes Act, a party to a "void marriage" may obtain a decree of nullity from a family court which entitles the party, among other things, to seek an order for financial support.  In Attorney General v. Akhter, (EWCA, Feb. 14, 2020), Britain's Court of Appeal held that a party to an Islamic marriage ceremony held in a restaurant rather than a building registered as a marriage site and without other required formalities may not obtain a decree of nullity because the original ceremony not was not sufficient to even create a "void marriage."  The husband and wife had planned to follow the religious ceremony with a civil ceremony,  but never followed through on those plans. They remained together for 18 years and had four children before the wife sued for divorce. The court also posted a Media Summary of the decision.

Reporting on the lawsuit, International News quotes a critic of the decision

Today’s judgment will force Muslim and other women to turn to Sharia ‘courts’ that already cause significant harm to women and children for remedies because they are now locked out of the civil justice system.

British Criminal Prosecution of Husband For Coercive Behavior Used To Obtain Jewish Divorce ("Get")

Britain's Serious Crime Act 2015, Sec. 76, criminalizes controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship. Jewish Chronicle yesterday reported that for the first time the law has been used in a private prosecution brought by a wife to obtain a get (Jewish divorce document) from her husband. According to the paper:

The husband was due to face a crown court trial in July and, if convicted, could have been jailed for up to five years.

But she has discontinued the case after her ex-husband finally gave the get last month.

British Court Says Sikh Challenge To Census Proposal Is Premature

In Gill, R (on the application of) v UK Statistics Authority, (EWHC, Dec. 12, 2019), a High Court judge in England dismissed as premature a challenge to a proposal by the UK Statistics Authority not to include a Sikh ethnic group tick box response in the 2021 census. Under the proposal there would be a specific "Sikh" response under "Religion", but those wishing to list themselves as Sikh under ethnicity would need to check the "Other, specify" box. The court agreed with the government's claim, which the court described as follows:

[T]his claim is a pre-emptive challenge to the exercise of the Queen's powers ... before the Minister has made a final decision on the form of the census questionnaire, or laid the draft delegated legislation before Parliament, and before Parliament and the Queen in Council have had an opportunity to consider it. The Defendant submits that the claim is premature, and in breach of Parliamentary privilege, as a declaration in the terms sought would not respect the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary.

Law & Religion UK has more on the decision.

British Court Enjoins Protests Against School's LGBT Curriculum

In Birmingham City Council v. Afsar, (EWHC, Nov. 26, 2019), a trial judge in the High Court in the British city of Birmingham held that an injunction should be issued limiting the manner in which demonstrators can protest an elementary school's curriculum on LGBT issues. According to the court:

The case has been pleaded and argued in various ways, but at its heart is the argument that the School’s teaching policy – described by the defendants as “the teaching of LGBT issues (ie teaching equalities)” – represents or involves unlawful discrimination against British Pakistani Muslim children at the School, and those with parental responsibility for them ... on grounds of race and/or religion. It is submitted that the core religious, philosophical and cultural values of this group “are centred on heterosexual relationships in marriage; this state of belief does not encompass same sex relationships”. ....

The court held that the Equality Act 2010 excludes from its coverage anything done in connection with the content of curriculum. In any event, the court concluded:

The teaching has been misunderstood and misinterpreted by the defendants, and misrepresented, sometimes grossly misrepresented, in the course of the protests. The matters that have actually been taught are limited, and lawful. 

The court went on:

The evidence – including but not limited to the expert evidence - persuades me that the levels of noise generated by this way of protesting is clearly excessive, amounting to an intrusion into the lives of those at the School and its neighbours that goes well beyond anything that could be justified as proportionate to the aims of persuasion. 

The court held, however, that an earlier injunction banning the use of social media by protesters should be lifted, saying in part:

The speech with which I am here concerned has been expressed in the context of a private, or limited, WhatsApp group. It was not aimed at the teachers, in the sense that they were intended to read it. It has come to their attention only as a result of disclosures made by one or more members of that group. The scale, frequency, nature and impact of the abuse to date, given its context, do not give rise to a sufficiently compelling case for interference.

The court also issued a summary of the decision. The British publication Conservative Women published an article highly critical of the decision.

British Parliament Approves Regulations Extending Civil Partnerships to Opposite-Sex Couples

Law & Religion UK reports that in Britain, the Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019 were approved by the House of Commons on Oct. 31 and by the House of Lords on November 5.

Britain Has New Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief

In Britain last week, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced:

The Prime Minister has today appointed Rehman Chishti MP as his new Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief. In his new position, Rehman Chishti will bring together efforts across the UK Government, with faith actors and civil society to promote the UK’s firm stance on religious tolerance abroad. The Special Envoy will continue to lead the implementation of the recommendations from the recent independent review into FCO support for persecuted Christians led by the Bishop of Truro. He will also advocate for the rights of all individuals here in the UK and around the world who are being discriminated against and persecuted for their faith or belief.

Rehman Chishti’s appointment means that the Government will now have a dedicated person on the issue of religious freedom. The Envoy role was previously held by FCO Minister Lord (Tariq) Ahmad who will continue to champion human rights in his Ministerial capacity. This appointment will therefore increase the number of people working on the issue of religious freedom across government....

[Thanks to Law & Religion UK for the lead.]

British Appeals Court Upholds Order For Payments Until A "Get" Is Granted

In Moher v. Moher, (EWCA, Aug. 21, 2019), Britain's Court of Appeal upheld an order issued by a trial court in a divorce action requiring the husband to pay £22,000 per year until the husband granted the wife a get (Jewish divorce decree). British statutes specifically allow courts to order that the civil divorce decree will not become final until the marriage has been dissolved under Jewish law. The appeals court concluded that this does not prevent other types of orders directed at obtaining a get. The appeals court pointed out that "a Get obtained by compulsion is invalid in Jewish law," but concluded that:

the structure of the order in the present case does not compel the husband to act in a certain way. The court order provides only that until he grants a Get he has to pay periodical payments to the wife.

Family Law Week reports on the decision.

Britain Announces Next Steps For Opposite-Sex Civil Partnerships

In a press release last week, Britain's Government Equalities Office announced the release of its report titled Implementing Opposite-Sex Civil Partnerships: Next Steps.  It announces detailed plans for extending civil partnerships to opposite sex couples, and to ask for views of the public on whether conversion of marriages to civil partnerships should be permitted. The report says in part:

Broadly, we intend to provide protections to ensure that faith or religious organisations are not compelled to act in a way that would be in contravention of their beliefs.

...We are aware that for many religious groups, the preferred union for opposite-sex couples is marriage and those groups would not wish to host civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples on their premises, or in any way participate in the formation of opposite-sex civil partnerships. They may also have religious objections to employing individuals, including ministers, who are in a civil partnership as opposed to a marriage.

Law & Religion UK has an extensive discussion of the report.

Britain's Appeals Court: Christian Social Work Student Improperly Suspended For Anti-Gay Facebook Postings

In Ngole v. University of Sheffield, (EWCA, July 3, 2019), England's Court of Appeal held that the University of Sheffield had unfairly removed a Christian student from its Master of Social Work program after the student posted his views on Facebook that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are sins.  The postings, in response to the jailing in 2015 of Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, appeared on MSNBC's Facebook page. The Court, ordering a new disciplinary hearing by the University, summarized its conclusions in part as follows:

(10) The University wrongly confused the expression of religious views with the notion of discrimination. The mere expression of views on theological grounds (e.g. that ‘homosexuality is a sin’) does not necessarily connote that the person expressing such views will discriminate on such grounds. In the present case, there was positive evidence to suggest that the Appellant had never discriminated on such grounds in the past and was not likely to do so in the future (because, as he explained, the Bible prohibited him from discriminating against anybody).

(11) The University gave different and confusing reasons for suspending the Appellant. Initially, it was said (by the Fitness to Practice Committee) that he lacked “insight” into how his NBC postings might affect his ability to carry out “his role as a social worker”; and subsequently it was said (by the Appeals Committee) that he lacked “insight” into how his NBC postings “may negatively affect the public’s view of the social work profession”. Further, at no stage during the process or the hearings did the University properly put either concern as to perception to the Appellant during the hearings.

(12) The University’s approach to sanction was, in any event, disproportionate: instead of exploring and imposing a lesser penalty, such as a warning, the University imposed the extreme penalty of dismissing the Appellant from his course, which was inappropriate in all the circumstances.

The Guardian reports on the decision.

British Parliament Debates Sharia Councils

On May 2, Britain's House of Commons debated the operation of Sharia Councils in the United Kingdom. (full text of debate). MP John Howell said in part:

Sharia councils provide a form of alternative dispute resolution.... Members of the Muslim community voluntarily consent to accept the religious jurisdiction of sharia councils. Marital issues and the granting of Islamic marriage divorces account for about 90% of their work. They also advise in matters ​of law, including issues of inheritance, probate and wills and Islamic commercial law contracts, and they provide mediation, counselling and religious ruling services.

Sharia councils are not considered part of the British legal system. They are not courts and their decisions are not legally binding. However, despite having no judicial authority, some councils see themselves as authoritative on religious issues, and the power of sharia councils lies in how they are perceived by their communities.

A significant number of Muslims do not have a marriage recognised under British law.... [S]ome Muslim women therefore have no option of obtaining a civil divorce. Some women may have no other option but to obtain a religious divorce, for which the judgment of a sharia council is normally required.

Law & Religion UK has a more extensive summary of the debate.