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

The Supreme Court considered whether the chapel of the Church of Scientology at 146 Queen Victoria Street is a "place of meeting for religious worship" within the meaning of section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 and whether it should therefore be registrable under that Act and as a building for the solemnisation of marriages under section 41 of the Marriage Act 1949. The Court concluded that Scientology falls within a contemporary, non-theistic-inclusive understanding of "religion" and that "religious worship" should be read broadly to include religious services (not confined to the theistic veneration test applied in R v Registrar General, Ex p Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697). On that basis the Court overruled Segerdal, held that the chapel is a place of meeting for religious worship under section 2 PWRA and ordered registration under section 3 PWRA and as a place for solemnisation of marriages under section 41 of the Marriage Act 1949. The Court also affirmed (in Lord Wilson's separate reasoning) that the Registrar General has a decision-making function to satisfy herself that a place is genuinely used for religious worship before recording it, and is not a mere ministerial registrar obliged to accept self-certification.

Background and parties

The first appellant wished to be married in the Church of Scientology chapel at 146 Queen Victoria Street. The proprietor applied to register the chapel under section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 and, subsequently, under section 41 of the Marriage Act 1949. The Registrar General refused, relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Segerdal which held that Scientology services in that context were not "religious worship" for the purposes of the 1855 Act. The appellants sought judicial review. Ouseley J in the Administrative Court dismissed the claim, considering himself bound by Segerdal even while accepting that Scientology was a religion on the evidence. He certified a point of law of general public importance for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court ([2012] EWHC 3635 (Admin)).

Relief sought and issues

• (i) The appellants sought a declaration that the chapel is a place of meeting for religious worship under section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 and orders for registration under section 3 of that Act and registration for the solemnisation of marriages under section 41 of the Marriage Act 1949.
• (ii) The principal legal issues were: whether Segerdal should be upheld or overruled; the proper contemporary meaning of "religion" and of the composite phrase "place of meeting for religious worship" in section 2 PWRA; and whether the Registrar General's function in recording certified places is purely ministerial or involves a discretion to be satisfied that the premises are genuinely used for religious worship.

Court's reasoning

The Court (Lord Toulson, with whom Lords Neuberger, Clarke and Reed agreed) analysed the historical statutory context and a range of comparative authorities. It rejected a narrow theistic definition of religion and adopted a broader, descriptive approach (drawing on indicia from comparative jurisprudence) that treats religion as a spiritual or non-secular belief system held by a group of adherents that claims to explain mankind's place in the universe and prescribes standards of conduct. "Religious worship" was read to include religious services and rites, not merely reverence or veneration of a deity in a narrowly theistic sense. The Court considered the practical and statutory consequences (including interaction with section 26(1) and section 46B(4) of the Marriage Act 1949) and concluded that to confine registration to the theistic veneration test would produce discriminatory and illogical results. Consequently Segerdal was overruled and the chapel was declared registrable under section 3 PWRA and as a place for solemnisation of marriages under section 41 of the Marriage Act 1949. Lord Wilson added a discrete judgment holding that the Registrar General does have a decision-making function to ensure the genuineness of a certificate and is not confined to a purely ministerial role; he rejected a general presumption in favour of self-certification. It was unnecessary to decide the Equality Act or European Convention arguments.

Outcome

The appeal was allowed: the chapel was declared a place of meeting for religious worship within section 2 PWRA and the Registrar General was ordered to register it under section 3 PWRA and as a building for the solemnisation of marriages under section 41 of the Marriage Act 1949.

Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court held that Scientology falls within a modern, non-theistic-inclusive understanding of "religion" and that "religious worship" in section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 should be interpreted broadly to include religious services; R v Registrar General, Ex p Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697 was overruled on that point. The chapel at 146 Queen Victoria Street was declared a place of meeting for religious worship and the Registrar General was ordered to register it under section 3 PWRA and as a place for the solemnisation of marriages under section 41 of the Marriage Act 1949. Lord Wilson added that the Registrar General has a decision-making function and is not purely ministerial in recording certified places.

The claim was heard in the Administrative Court (Ouseley J) and dismissed: [2012] EWHC 3635 (Admin). Ouseley J certified a point of law of general public importance for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court and allowed: [2013] UKSC 77.