Beneficent Spiritist Center Uniao Do Vegetal v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Interference with religious manifestation under Article 9(2) requires justification by a legitimate aim and proportionality. Where the manifestation involves a class A controlled drug, the Secretary of State is entitled to a broad margin of appreciation, particularly where evidence does not establish long-term safety and public-safety concerns arise from altered consciousness. There is no presumption that a licence must be granted merely because controlled-drug licensing powers exist. The decision-maker may consider the United Kingdom’s international treaty obligations and a potential breach of those obligations as part of the proportionality assessment. The fact that other countries adopt a different approach does not itself invalidate that reasoning.

The claimant, a recognised religious group, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to licence the importation, possession and supply of hoasca tea for religious consumption. Hoasca contains dimethyltryptamine, a class A drug controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

The claim alleged infringement of the congregation’s Article 9 rights. The Secretary of State relied on public health and safety concerns, the limited evidence concerning hoasca’s safety, and a potential breach of the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971. The application was renewed after Lang J refused permission on the papers. The central issue was whether the refusal was a disproportionate interference with religious manifestation.

1. Application refused. The renewed judicial review application was refused.
2. Article 9(2) permits limitations on religious manifestation where prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for aims including public safety and health. The Secretary of State therefore had to justify the interference by reference to a legitimate aim and proportionality.
3. The existence of licensing powers under section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 created no presumption in favour of granting a licence. The drug was class A, and the evidence before the Secretary of State did not establish its long-term safety. She was entitled to take a cautious approach to health risks.
4. The Secretary of State was also entitled to consider public-safety risks associated with the altered state of consciousness potentially produced by hoasca. Given the broad margin of appreciation applicable to this assessment, that reasoning was lawful.
5. The potential breach of the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971 was a legally relevant consideration in the proportionality assessment. The Secretary of State was entitled to rely on the analysis concerning Article 7(a). The court saw no inconsistency between the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Convention.
6. The approach taken by other countries did not undermine the Secretary of State’s legal analysis. The refusal was therefore proportionate and lawful. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of preparing the acknowledgment of service in the sum previously directed by Lang J.

This was a renewed judicial review application. Lang J had refused permission on the papers. The Administrative Court refused the renewed application.