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

For the purposes of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, religion is a spiritual or non-secular belief system, held by a group, which claims to explain humanity’s place in the universe and relationship with the infinite, and teaches its adherents how to live consistently with that understanding. Belief in a supreme deity is unnecessary.

“Religious worship” includes religious services. It is not confined to reverence or veneration of a deity. The legislation must be interpreted according to contemporary understanding and without discrimination between recognised and less familiar religions.

The Registrar General must determine whether premises are genuinely used for religious worship. Where they are, the premises may be recorded and registered for the solemnisation of marriages.

The appellants wished to have a Church of Scientology chapel registered as a place of meeting for religious worship under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 and as a building for the solemnisation of marriages under the Marriage Act 1949. The Registrar General refused because the Court of Appeal had held in R v Registrar General, Ex p Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697 that a Scientology chapel was not such a place.

Ouseley J dismissed the judicial review claim in [2012] EWHC 3635 (Admin), [2013] PTSR 875. He found that Scientology was a religion but considered himself bound by the narrow definition of religious worship in Segerdal. A leapfrog appeal was permitted.

The central issues were whether Segerdal should be upheld and whether the Registrar General’s recording function was purely ministerial.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Toulson, with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Clarke and Lord Reed agreed, held that the chapel was a place of meeting for religious worship within section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. Lord Wilson agreed and addressed separately the Registrar General’s function.

2. Religion should not ordinarily be confined to faiths recognising a supreme deity. Such a restriction would discriminate against acknowledged non-theistic religions and draw public officials and courts into inappropriate theological disputes. Section 2 must be interpreted according to contemporary understanding and the legislation’s broad, anti-discriminatory purpose, rather than the assumptions of legislators in 1855.

3. For the purposes of the 1855 Act, religion may be described as a spiritual or non-secular belief system, held by a group of adherents, which claims to explain humanity’s place in the universe and relationship with the infinite, and teaches adherents how to live in conformity with that spiritual understanding. The system must go beyond what can be perceived by the senses or established by science. This was a description rather than a definitive formula. Scientology amply satisfied it.

4. “Religious worship” is broad enough to include religious services, rites and ceremonies. It does not require submission, reverence or veneration directed towards a deity. Registration should not depend upon fine theological or liturgical distinctions concerning how a religious group understands or expresses its relationship with the infinite.

5. The narrower approach in R v Registrar General, Ex p Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697 was overruled. It would otherwise prevent Scientologists from using their religious marriage service either in their chapel or on approved premises, since section 46B(4) of the Marriage Act 1949 prohibits religious services at marriages on approved premises. That result would be illogical, discriminatory and unjust.

6. Lord Wilson held that the Registrar General’s function is not purely ministerial. A place may be recorded only if it is genuinely a place of religious worship. The Registrar General may investigate that question and, subject to judicial review, must refuse recording if the condition is not satisfied. The contrary self-certification argument was rejected.

7. The court declared that the chapel was a place of meeting for religious worship. It ordered registration under section 3 of the 1855 Act and section 41(1) of the 1949 Act. It was unnecessary to decide the arguments under the Equality Act 2010 or the European Convention.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: Allowed the leapfrog appeal unanimously, overruled the relevant religious-worship holding in Segerdal, declared the chapel to be a place of meeting for religious worship and ordered its registration.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: Ouseley J dismissed the judicial review claim in [2012] EWHC 3635 (Admin), [2013] PTSR 875. He held that Scientology was a religion but considered himself bound by Segerdal on the meaning of religious worship. He certified a point of law for a leapfrog appeal.