Hodkin & Ors, R (on the application of) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages

A place may qualify as a place for religious worship even where the religion is non-theistic. The statutory phrase must be applied to the religious practices of the relevant body, without imposing traditional or theistic forms of worship. However, a binding appellate decision remains applicable unless materially changed evidence shows that the relevant practices have significantly changed, or the decision is overturned or distinguished. A place used principally for instruction, meditation or activities which do not amount to worship does not qualify.

The claimants challenged the Registrar General’s refusal to register a Scientology chapel under Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. Registration was required before the chapel could be registered for the solemnisation of marriages under Marriage Act 1949. The Registrar General relied on R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697, concerning another Scientology chapel. The claimants relied on updated evidence, changing social conditions, human rights legislation and alleged unequal treatment of other religions. The central issue was whether Segerdal remained binding and whether the present chapel involved religious worship.

1. Claim dismissed. The Registrar General had correctly applied the binding decision in R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697.
2. Under s2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, the Registrar General must decide whether the premises are in fact a place of meeting for religious worship. A certificate alone does not require registration. The court must determine that issue for itself.
3. Segerdal did not decide that Scientology was not a religion, or that only theistic religions could qualify. Its ratio was concerned with worship. A place for non-theistic religious worship may fall within the Act. The decision nevertheless held that the Scientology services then considered did not involve worship.
4. The court accepted that Scientology was a religion for the purposes of the 1855 Act, adopting a broad approach consistent with Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Victoria) [1983] 154 CLR 120. That conclusion did not overcome Segerdal’s binding treatment of worship.
5. A later court may depart from the practical application of a binding authority if evidence demonstrates a significant change in the relevant beliefs or practices. The evidence showed changes in description and greater acceptance of Scientology, but no significant change in its beliefs or congregational services. The addition of a prayer and a wedding ceremony did not alter the conclusion that the services were not worship under Segerdal.
6. The Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010 did not permit a different interpretation or establish unlawful discrimination. The Registrar General’s duty was to apply the statutory test to the facts, and alleged inconsistency in other registrations did not create a separate public-law duty.