Emergency security for mosques
In response to the recent inner-city rioting (on which we’ve refrained from commenting thus far because it has little or nothing to do with “law and religion”: it’s just old-fashioned criminality), the Home Office has announced that mosques are being offered greater protection with new emergency security that can be rapidly deployed. Under the new process now in place, the police, local authorities and mosques can ask for rapid security to be deployed, protecting communities and allowing for a return to worship as quickly as possible. The announcement builds on the existing Protective Security for Mosques Scheme, with up to £29.4 million already available in the current financial year to fund security at mosques and Muslim faith schools.
Sharia tribunals and the Arbitration Act
On Monday, the Government answered a written question by Lord Swire (Con) asking what plans HMG has “to ensure and enforce oversight and governance of sharia courts and Muslim arbitration tribunals”. Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede replied as follows:
“The Government has no plans to regulate religious dispute resolution processes (such as sharia courts) where all parties consent to those processes. This is consistent with Britain’s long history of freedom of worship and religious tolerance, and the legal rights and remedies of the parties involved remain in place.
Decisions of such bodies are only enforceable if there is a valid arbitration agreement by which all parties have consented to the process, as provided under the terms of the Arbitration Act 1996 for any arbitration panel” [our emphasis].
Exactly: see, for example, Sterling v Rand & Anor [2019] EWHC 2560 (Ch) and Kohn v Wagschal & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 1022: we’ve previously discussed the issue here.
“An ostrich-like approach to ecclesiastical law requirements…?”
The case of Re St Thomas the Martyr Up Holland [2024] ECC Liv 2 is yet another application for a confirmatory faculty in respect of extensive reordering works undertaken without prior issue of a faculty. These related to the creation in the Grade I church of a community hub and included: removal and disposal of 12 pews; installation of 8 storage cupboards; creation of a servery and a café area with tables and chairs; the installation of a shop area with display units; the installation of a Post Office counter and completion of an agreement with the Post Office; and external signage.
Whilst Wood Ch granted a faculty, he was not satisfied with the quality of the storage cupboards, the kitchen servery furniture and the units to the west wall; consequently, he made it a condition of the faculty that those items must be replaced within 12 months by furnishings designed to be more in keeping with the character of the church and approved by the Diocesan Advisory Committee.
He observed at [37] that “Mistakes that have been made arise out of, perhaps, an ostrich-like approach to ecclesiastical law requirements which has led to the present denouement” and at [44] that he had no alternative but to direct that the parish should bear the fees and costs associated with the petition. However, he concluded:
“[45]. It simply remains for me to make this observation. All those involved in this unfortunate case have conducted themselves with dignity and sought to resolve matters sensibly, which augers well for improved relationships from here onwards and which has made my determination more straightforward, for which I am grateful.”
A more detailed Case Note will be published on this and the related earlier determinations of the court: Re St Thomas the Martyr Up Holland [2019] ECC Liv 4 and Re St Thomas the Martyr Up Holland [2020] ECC Liv 3.
Bishops in the Lords
For what it’s worth, on Wednesday Baroness Twycross answered a written question by Lord Scriven (Lib Dem) on the Government’s plans “to include the rights of Church of England Bishops to sit in the House of Lords in their public consultation on the reform of the Lords” as follows:
“Measures to modernise the constitution were announced in the King’s Speech, including legislation to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. This will be the first step in wider reform to the second chamber, as set out in the manifesto.”
Quick links
- Katie Fudakowski and Amy Wren, Farrer & Co: Scope of indirect discrimination extended: on the potential effects of the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which came into force at the beginning of 2024, in widening the scope of indirect discrimination claims in employment.
- Myriam Hunter-Henin, Current Legal Problems: Religious Expression and Exemptions in the Private Sector Workplace: Spotting Bias.
- Philip Jones, Ecclesiastical Law: The Church Commissioners: England’s Ministry of Religion: an interesting piece, but maybe the title is slightly misleading: the role of the Church Commissioners relates exclusively to the Church of England – certainly not to “religion” in general.
And finally…