Blake v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Courts will not adjudicate doctrinal disputes, religious procedures, the customs of a religious community, or the moral and religious fitness of office-holders. Where such non-justiciable matters lie at the heart of a libel action, the court must assess whether the pleadings can be adapted to permit a fair trial.

A stay is an exceptional remedy because it prevents vindication of reputation. It is appropriate where the excluded issues are central, cannot fairly be excised or reformulated, and restricting the defendant’s case would create unfairness or unjustifiably impair freedom of expression.

The claimant, formerly an Anglican vicar, brought a libel action concerning Daily Mail articles describing him as a self-styled or imitation bishop. The defendant pleaded justification and fair comment, relying on the alleged invalidity of the claimant’s ordination and consecration and on his religious and moral suitability for episcopal office.

The parties accepted that determining the validity of the claimant’s consecration would involve non-justiciable questions of doctrine, ecclesiastical authority, religious custom and fitness for office. The court therefore considered whether those issues could be removed or reformulated, or whether the action as a whole had to be stayed.

1. Non-justiciability. The court would not enter doctrinal disputes or differences. The same restraint extended to the procedures adopted by religious bodies, the customs and practices of a religious community, and questions concerning the moral and religious fitness of a person to perform spiritual and pastoral duties (General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v Lord Overtoun [1904] AC 515; Varsani v Jesani [1999] Ch 219; R v Chief Rabbi ex parte Wachmann [1992] 1 WLR 1036; R v the Imam of Bury Park Jame Masjid Luton and others ex parte Suliman Ali).
2. Stay of proceedings. The court was extremely reluctant to stay a libel action because a stay denied the claimant the opportunity to vindicate his reputation. However, following Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321, a stay could be ordered in the most extreme circumstances where exclusion of material made a fair determination impossible.
3. The pleadings raised numerous questions at the centre of the dispute, including the authority of the person who performed the consecration, the validity of the ceremony, conformity with religious rules and customs, and the parties’ moral and religious fitness. Those issues were not marginal.
4. The court considered whether the action could proceed on a narrower secular issue, such as whether a consecration ceremony had occurred. That would not provide a fair solution because the defendant would still seek to argue that the ceremony lacked religious or ecclesiastical validity. Preventing that argument would unfairly restrict the defence and impair freedom of expression.
5. The issues could not be adapted or tailored so as to permit a fair trial. The action was therefore stayed.