Reforming weddings law in England and Wales
On Thursday, in reply to a debate in Westminster Hall initiated by David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, Con), the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, Sarah Sackman, said that “last year the Government announced the biggest overhaul of weddings law in England and Wales since the 19th century”:
“Our reforms focus on two key areas ripe for change. First, the law will move away from regulating the building in which a wedding takes place, and instead focus on the officiant responsible for conducting the ceremony. That will make it easier for people to get married in a variety of settings, giving them flexibility and choice. Secondly, we will introduce a single set of rules governing all weddings, with the exception of retaining Anglican preliminaries. That will enable many more couples to have ceremonies that reflect their values and beliefs.”
She reiterated that the Government is to publish a consultation early this year:
“I appreciate that it is already March, and as one knows, ‘early this year’ can be a flexible concept in this place, but our determination remains to get on with that consultation, building on the Law Commission’s report. That report was comprehensive, and the Government’s consultation will therefore focus on more detailed aspects of reform, including the dignity and suitability of locations and ceremonies, and the role of independent officiants.”
As to the notice period, under which a couple who have given notice of their intention to marry must generally wait 28 days before they are issued their marriage schedule, she noted that the Law Commission had not recommended any change:
“The Law Commission considered the preliminaries process in detail in its report and emphasised the importance of maintaining a robust notice system, given the protections that it offers for vulnerable people and against forced and sham marriages … However, it noted that the process could be made easier for couples, and recommended providing an online system for giving notice … The Government are carefully considering our approach to preliminaries and the process for giving notice.”
Ireland, Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood products
Ms E, a 16-year-old Jehovah’s Witness, was 37 weeks pregnant and was admitted to hospital on 8 February 2026 with reduced foetal movement – for the third time during her pregnancy. She had expressed a wish not to receive a blood transfusion in any situation, pursuant to part 8 of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. Her parents, also JWs, supported her. The applicant Health Service Executive sought authorisation from the High Court to provide E with all appropriate medical treatment and ancillary procedures, including blood transfusions and clotting agents, and to take all reasonable steps necessary and clinically or medically indicated to treat any complications. Ms E’s Guardian ad litem had stated that Ms E was not “strongly into her religion at the moment” and had confirmed to her that it would be easier for her personally if the decision were taken out of her hands
In the High Court in Dublin, in Re E (etc) [2026] IEHC 134, Heslin J found for the Health Service Executive and granted the reliefs sought. He was satisfied that it was a situation in which it was appropriate to override the single, discrete decision to refuse treatment to avoid the possibility of “the tragic and needless death of the minor, or her serious and irreversible injury”. He emphasised that a refusal by the court to permit a transfusion in the event that it became clinically necessary would constitute a clear failure to vindicate Ms E’s rights to bodily integrity and to life.
[With thanks to Irish Legal News. We hope to post a formal note on the judgment shortly.]
The Grade II* church of St Thomas the Apostle, Stanhope, is unusual in having three fonts, and these reflect changes in their use and misuse over the years, and the applicability of Canon F1. The font currently in use is an 1863 Frosterley marble font with a carved oak cover dating back to 1907; a much older stone font, possible Saxon, stands below the western respond of the north arcade and “was once recovered from the churchyard”; and a third font, a small 19th century example, which previously belonged in the chapel at Crawleyside and “was rediscovered in a garden serving as a bird bath in 1985”.
The petition in Re St Thomas Stanhope [2026] ECC Dur 1 sought to move the Frosterley marble font to the east end of the north aisle (but without its oak cover), to position the Saxon font where the Frosterley marble font is currently situated, make the Saxon font mobile so it can be easily moved for use during baptisms, and relocate the Crawleyside font to a garden of remembrance within the churchyard. These proposals gave rise to significant controversy and opposition, and in light of the representations made, the PCC reconsidered its proposals for the Frosterley marble font. They now no longer seek to move it from its existing place, and would keep its cover in situ. Isles Ch commended them for their reappraisal and was satisfied they had come to the right decision.
However, the petitioners did not provide satisfactory justification for the removal of the Crawleyside font to the churchyard, and it is to be retained within the church; any new position for it is to be agreed with the DAC, and in default of agreement, the court. Likewise, the position of the Saxon font when not in use.
Quick links
- Chris Cuckney, Lexology: Balancing Protected Beliefs Between Employees and Service Users – Mr Ngole v Touchstone Leeds.
- Kate Dewsnip, Constitution Society blog: Lawmaking as Memorial: Named Laws in the UK : to which we’ve added another candidate, v. infra.
- Ceri Fuller and Hilary Larter, Lexology: Religious discrimination: Tribunal failed to scrutinise whether reasons for not recruiting a Christian social worker were because of his religious beliefs.
- Martin Sewell, Surviving Church: Persistent and Vexatious – Pursuing Justice in the Church of England.
And finally…
From Scottish Legal News: Anne’s Law passed at Holyrood – or as grumpy old gits like Frank prefer to call it, the Care Home Services (Visits to and by Residents) (Scotland) Regulations 2026. That, dear politicians, is what the Long and Short Titles of statutes and statutory instruments were designed for: to tell decrepit old folk with failing memories (like him) what they are about. Or in the immortal words of Brenda from Bristol: “You’re joking – not another one?”