R (1) Louisa Hodkin (1st Claimant) (2) Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc. (2nd Claimant) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Ouseley |
| Judgment Date | 19 December 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 3751 (Admin),[2012] EWHC 3635 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/10452/2011,Case No: CO/10452/2011 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 19 December 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 3635 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Ouseley
Case No: CO/10452/2011
Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC and Miss Naina Patel (instructed by Paul Hewitt, Withers LLP Solicitors) for the Claimants
Mr James Strachan (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 23 rd and 24 th October 2012
Louisa Hodkin is a 23 year old Scientologist who wishes to marry her fiancé, also a Scientologist, at the London Church Chapel, a chapel of the Church of Scientology, in Queen Victoria Street, London. They are both volunteers there. She is the first Claimant. But the chapel is not registered under s2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 as a "place of meeting for religious worship". It is therefore not a registered building within s26 of the Marriage Act 1949 and, unless registered under the 1855 Act, no application can be made under the 1949 Act for it to be registered for the solemnisation of marriages. S26 of the Marriage Act 1949 contains no prescription as to the form of service required for a marriage ceremony in a registered place of worship, registered for the solemnisation of marriages.
On 13 May 2011, the Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc, which owns the chapel and is the Second Claimant, applied to the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the registration of the chapel as a place of meeting for religious worship under the 1855 Act. The Registrar General refused the application by a decision dated 29 July 2011 on the grounds that the Chapel was not a place for "religious worship". She is the Defendant to this challenge to that decision. She points out that the couple can be married in the chapel in whatever form of ceremony they choose, provided that they are also married in a civil ceremony. Scientologists can also apply for their chapels to be approved as places where a civil marriage ceremony can take place. The Claimants point out that if the chapel were in Scotland, their marriage in it would be legally recognised without the need for a separate civil ceremony, albeit under different legislative provisions.
The Defendant submits that she was bound to come to her conclusion by virtue of the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697, which upheld her predecessor's refusal to register another Scientologist chapel as a "place of meeting for religious worship." Whether that was on the grounds that Scientology was not a religion or on the grounds that no worship was undertaken was a matter of dispute. She submits that I am equally bound to come to the same conclusion, and no change of evidence or circumstance justified a different decision.
The Claimants submit that, if Segerdal is binding, it does not preclude my finding on the evidence now before me that this London chapel is a place of religious worship. This is because the understanding of Scientology as a religion has developed since 1970; further, better and updated evidence is now available, and a more expansive approach is now required to the meaning of place "for religious worship" in what is now a more obviously multi-faith society. Importantly, the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010, precluding discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, mean that the distinction drawn by the Court of Appeal between Buddhism and Scientology can not be upheld to the disadvantage of Scientology, and that the practice of the Registrar General of registering Buddhist temples as places of religious worship, along with Jain temples and others, but not Scientology chapels, also discriminates against Scientologists. This discrimination should be removed by a different and broader approach to the 1855 Act.
This application is not concerned with any financial benefit to the Church of Scientology: this chapel is already exempt from rates on the local authority's decision, as a charity. Others may or may not be exempt depending on the decision of the local authorities.
The statutory provisions
S2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 provides so far as material:
"Every place of meeting for religious worship of Protestant Dissenters or other Protestants, and of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion, […] not heretofore certified and registered or recorded in manner required by law, and every place of meeting for religious worship of persons professing the Jewish religion, not heretofore certified and registered or recorded as aforesaid, and every place of meeting for religious worship of any other body or denomination of persons, may be certified in writing to the Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England,…"
Although the remaining words of s2 could suggest that the Registrar General's duty is simply then to register the place so certified, that is not the position. The Registrar General can only register a place which is "a place of meeting for religious worship". She has no power to do otherwise; Segerdal, above. She is also empowered under s8 to cancel the registration of places which cease to be used as places of meeting for religious worship. But by s41 of the Marriage Act 1949, once the 1855 Act registration has been secured, the application for its registration for the solemnisation of marriages has to be granted.
As Lord Lester QC for the Claimants pointed out, this Act was not designed to introduce controls on places of religious worship through a system of registration; quite the contrary. It was a liberalising or remedial measure to create a general system of registration of places of religious worship of those Roman Catholics and Jews whose places of worship were not already covered by earlier piecemeal legislation, and of the places of religious worship of Protestants and Protestant Dissenters, and of adherents of "any other body or denomination".
The Act therefore applies to the many religions, whether monotheistic or not, which are now much more common in England and Wales than they were in 1855. The Registrar General treats as religions some beliefs which, on some analyses at least, may not be theistic at all, but are commonly called religions; Buddhism, or at least one major strand of it, is an obvious example.
The decision in Segerdal
This case concerned an application for registration under the 1855 Act of a Scientologist chapel in East Grinstead. I start briefly with the Divisional Court judgment, [1970] 1 QB 430, given by Ashworth J with whom Lord Parker CJ and Cantley J agreed. Lord Denning MR and Winn LJ in the Court of Appeal specifically agreed with the Divisional Court judgment. The Court first held that the Registrar General could not register a place which was not a place for religious worship simply because a certificate to that effect had been received. The judicial review of the decision of the Registrar General required the Court to decide for itself whether the place was a place for religious worship, and not simply whether his decision was a reasonable one.
The mere fact that a place had a religious connection or purpose did not make it a place "for religious worship". "Worship" required a worshipper and an object of his worship, held the Divisional Court, drawing on the decision in Henning v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [1964] AC 420, and a definition of "worship" in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary: "the actions or practices of displaying reverence or veneration to a being regarded as divine by appropriate…rites or ceremonies". However wide that might be, there had to be an object of worship for worship to occur. "Religious" worship meant that there had to be a religion with which the worship was associated, though it was difficult to conceive of worship without religious connection in this context.
Ashworth J found it difficult to hold that Scientology was a religion, rather it was more a "meeting point or clearing house for persons of all religious beliefs through which people may better appreciate their spiritual character." But if people met to pursue their own religious worship, the place where they did so could still be a place of religious worship. A booklet entitled "Ceremonies of the Founding Church of Scientology" was supplied by the Church of Scientology in 1967 to the Registrar General, who had asked for information on its beliefs, the form of service and whether there was worship of a Supreme Being. Ashworth J treated this as of great importance. There was no reference to its creed being used in a service. However varied might be forms of religious service, a service of religious worship would contain some indication to that effect and an opportunity for worship, but there was none. The creed contained no profession of belief in a deity, nor anything of a "worshipful character" such as the object of the worship.
A letter from the Church said:
"Our Knowledge and understanding of the Supreme Being is very profound. Whilst we do not have a litanical form of worship, nevertheless our services are designed for people to acquire for themselves a knowledge of God and thus realise for themselves the profundity of the worship they should undertake which they are free to do on the premises."
None of this persuaded Ashworth J that this was more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CCC (Suing by her mother and litigation friend MMM) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
...be assisted by a fully reasoned judgment from the Court of Appeal, see Hodkin v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2012] EWHC 3751 (Admin). Where there is a novel statutory interpretation issue that draws into question compatibility of UK law with EU law, where the issue wa......
-
JTI Polska Sp. Z o.o. v Marek Jakubowski trading as Mark-Trans-Sped Marek Jakubowski and/or trading as Mark-Trans-Sped Transport-Spedycia Marek Jakubowski
...made to the Court of Appeal — see R (on the application of Hodgkin and others) v Registrar of General Births, Deaths and Marriages [2012] EWHC 3751 (Admin) per Ouseley J at paragraph 11 Mr Kimbell submits, and Mr Gardner does not dispute, that in the circumstances of this case, for an appl......