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

The claim challenged the Registrar General's refusal to register a Church of Scientology chapel under s2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 as a "place of meeting for religious worship" and thus as a place for the solemnisation of marriages under the Marriage Act 1949 (notably ss26 and 41). The court held that the Court of Appeal decision in R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697 remained binding unless there was evidence of a significant change in the nature of Scientology worship since 1970. Applying Segerdal, the judge found that although Scientology can be treated as a religion for the purposes of the 1855 Act, the evidence did not show a significant change in the nature of its services such that they now constituted "worship" as defined in Segerdal. Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010 arguments did not require a different statutory interpretation. The claim was therefore dismissed.

This is a first-instance judicial review challenge to the Registrar General's refusal (29 July 2011) to register the London Church Chapel of the Church of Scientology under s2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. The registration would have allowed marriages to be solemnised in the chapel under the Marriage Act 1949 (ss26 and 41). The claimants were Louisa Hodkin (who wished to marry there) and the Church of Scientology Religious Education College Inc (the owner).

The principal issues framed by the court were:

• whether R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697 remained binding and, if so, whether it foreclosed registration of the chapel;
• whether Scientology is a religion for the purposes of the 1855 Act and, relatedly, whether the chapel's congregational services constituted "religious worship" under the Segerdal approach;
• whether subsequent developments, additional evidence, or statutory obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998 or the Equality Act 2010 required a different approach to the 1855 Act.

The court reviewed historical materials, the 1970 authorities (including Henning), expert reports and detailed evidence about contemporary Scientology services (creed, sermons, group auditing and the Prayer for Total Freedom). The judge concluded that Segerdal does permit registration of non-theistic religions but that its operative concern was whether the services involved acts of "worship". On the evidence before him there had been no material change in the nature of Scientology worship since 1970 sufficient to displace Segerdal. Although Scientology could be regarded as a religion for the purposes of the 1855 Act, the court found the services did not, applying Segerdal, amount to the kind of worship required for registration. Arguments based on the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010 did not lead to a different statutory construction or compel registration. The court therefore dismissed the claim, while noting that the Court of Appeal might reconsider Segerdal in light of fuller material.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the Court of Appeal decision in Segerdal [1970] remains binding unless there is evidence of a substantial change in worship since 1970; on the evidence before the court no such change was shown. While Scientology may be treated as a religion for the purposes of the 1855 Act, the congregational services of the chapel did not, applying Segerdal, constitute "religious worship" requiring registration. Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010 arguments did not require a different interpretation of the 1855 Act.