by Barrister M. A. Muid Khan

Prologue

In R v Registrar-General ex parte Segerdal (1970) 1 All England Reports 1 (High Court) and 3 All England Reports 886 (Court of Appeal), Lord Denning MR, established the definition of “a place of religious worship” and “religion” in the light of the provisions of “Places of Worship Registration Act 1855”

This case is known as Segerdal case, in which Lord Denning MR said, “…Religious worship means reverence or veneration of God or of a Supreme Being…” with a view to clarify the definition of place of worship under the “Places of Worship Registration Act 1855”. In addition, Lord Denning MR asserted that the 1855 Act also granted freedom of worship to all, regardless of social or educational background. This case was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was instrumental in determining whether the Church of Scientology was to be considered a bona fide religion in England & Wales, and by extension what defines a religion in English Law.

Even though, we are living in the 21st Century and life had moved on since 1970 and a different and broader approach is now required to the 1855 Act, I strongly believe that Lord Denning was right in his interpretation of the intentions of the draftsmen in 1855.

Some 150 years later, in the 21st century are we still bound by Denning’s definition of the interpretation of the intentions of the draftsmen in 1855?

In my opinion, The Segerdal definition of “a place of religious worship” is still a requirement in determining the meaning of the term “place of worship” including the definition of religion in English Law. We are still bound by Lord Denning’s definition of the interpretation of the intentions of the draftsmen in 1855 – some 150 years later.

Background of the Segerdal case

The Segerdal case, heard in 1969–70, focused on the question of whether a chapel at the Scientologists’ UK headquarters should be registered as a meeting place for religious worship under an 1855 law. At the start of 1967, the Church of Scientology of California and Mr. Michael Segerdal acting chaplain and the church, submitted a request to the Registrar General to have its “chapel” at Saint Hill Manor, registered as a place of worship under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. Such a status would convey tax benefits and other advantages.

The Registrar General made enquiries following the application and was sent booklets titled Ceremonies of the Founding Church of Scientology and Scientology and the Bible. He turned down the application as he did not believe that Scientology qualified as a religion.

The Church’s initial application was refused and it appealed the case to the courts, arguing that Scientology was a genuine religion and that it used the chapel for religious purposes. In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that Scientology’s practices “did not reveal any form whatever of worship”

Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court

Mr. Segerdal and the Church appealed against the decision and brought an application for a writ of mandamus – essentially a request to overrule the Registrar General – to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in London. The case was heard by a panel of three judges: Lord Parker, the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Cantley. In its ruling, issued on 14 November 1969, the court dismissed the application with costs awarded against the plaintiffs. Justice Ashworth commented: “While Scientology may be wholly admirable, I find it difficult to reach the conclusion that it is a religion.”

Mr. Segerdal’s contention that Scientology was a bona fide religion was supported by the two booklets on Scientology’s “creeds”. Scientology and the Bible contended that “Scientology is a religion in the oldest sense of the word, a study of wisdom. Scientology is a study of man as a spirit, in his relationship to life and the physical universe. It is non-denominational. By that is meant that Scientology is open to people from all religious beliefs and in no way tries to persuade a person from his religion, but assists him to better understanding as a spiritual being.” Justice Ashworth commented that this formulation did not seem to support at all the assertion that Scientology was a religion; rather, it came across more as “a meeting point for persons of all religious beliefs, through which they might better appreciate their spiritual character.”

The central issue in the case was whether the chapel was “a place of meeting for religious worship”, as required by the 1855 Act. In support of the application, Mr. Segerdal described in an affidavit how the chapel was used. He told the court that “Sunday services” were held there at which the chaplain addressed a congregation and delivered a sermon on aspects of Scientology, possibly accompanied by a taped lecture from L. Ron Hubbard. It was followed by a short period for quiet contemplation or prayer and concluded with announcements of things happening in the forthcoming week. Segerdal also stated that other religious activities were conducted there such as christening or naming ceremonies, funeral services and wedding services.

The court ruled that for worship to take place, there had to be “both a worshipper and an object of worship.” For it to be religious worship, it had to be associated with a bona fide religion. This was a problem for Scientology, as its religious status was controversial and unclear. The court found that the evidence did not support Scientology’s claims of religious status, nor did its practices amount to religious worship. The services described by Segerdal were better described as services of instruction rather than worship.

The Court of Appeal

Mr. Segerdal further appealed against the decision of the High Court before the Court of Appeal where Lord Denning asserted that the procedure under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, is open to abuse. As he observed, registration under the 1855 Act confers exemption from rates and other privileges. Like all statutes, the 1855 Act must not become an instrument of fraud, such as tax evasion, sham marriage or some other dishonesty.

The Registrar must therefore be entitled to refuse to register a dishonest certificate. In this case, however, there was no question of dishonesty. Mr Segerdal genuinely believed that his chapel was a place of worship.

In the Court of Appeal, the case was heard by Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Winn and Lord Justice Buckley. Counsel for the Scientologists argued that the Registrar General was obliged to accept certifications of a place’s use for religious worship, but the court rejected this proposition.

Lord Denning found that the Registrar General was obliged to determine whether a place was truly being used for religious worship, as it would lead to abuses if he merely “rubber-stamped” such applications.

The court debated what “religious worship” meant but identified the phrase “place of meeting for religious worship” in the 1855 Act as being the key issue.

To Lord Denning’s mind, this meant “a place of which the principal use was as a place where people came together as a congregation to do reverence” to a deity, whether it was the Christian God or some other. The judges agreed that Scientology’s practices “did not reveal any form whatever of worship. [Scientologists] did not humble themselves in reverence or recognition of the dominant power and control of any entity or being outside their own bodies and life.”

As Lord Denning put it, “There is considerable stress on the spirit of Man, and adherents of this religion or philosophy believe that a man’s spirit is everlasting and moves from one human frame to another. But it is still, as far as I can see, the spirit of Man and not God.” The court found that there was no evidence of religious worship taking place in the chapel and dismissed the appeal. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

It is therefore argued that, as the minister and certifier of the chapel, his certificate should have been accepted for registration. That would have been consistent with both the wording and the purpose of the 1855 Act, which was to ensure freedom of worship by a process of self-certification.

Ten years later, the Segerdal ruling was drawn upon to define a religion for the purposes of English Common Law as requiring “faith in a god and worship of that god”.

Relevance in the 21st Century

The Segerdal definition still plays a very important role in marriage and places of worship in English Law and has continued to have relevance for many years since it was heard in 1969–70.

In R (Hodkin) & Anor v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2012] EWHC 3635 (Admin), the Registrar justified her decision on the grounds that she was bound by the previous decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697 which had upheld her predecessor’s refusal to register another Scientologist chapel as a “place of meeting for religious worship.”

She pointed out that the couple could be married in the chapel in whatever form of ceremony they chose, provided that they were also married in a civil ceremony. Equally, Scientologists could apply to have their chapels approved forcivil marriage ceremonies – but not, under the present law, for religious ones. Whether or not the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Segerdal was on the grounds that Scientology was not a religion or on the grounds that no worship was undertaken was a matter of dispute; but the Registrar General submitted that both she and the Administrative Court were equally bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision.

In 1974, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal relied upon Segerdal in ruling that Scientologists could not take advantage of the privileges given in immigration law to ministers of religion (Robillard, St. John A. (1984). Religion and the Law: Religious Liberty in Modern English Law. Manchester University Press).

The Segerdal ruling was heavily relied upon in 1980 to put forward a definition of religion in the case Re South Place Ethical Society. The Society, which proclaimed itself to be concerned with “the study and dissemination of ethical principles and the cultivation of a rational religious sentiment”, had applied for charitable status for the purpose of advancement of religion. Justice Dillon drew on the Segerdal case’s comments on what constituted a religion and observed: “Religion, as I see it, is concerned with man’s relations with God, and ethics are concerned with man’s relations with man. The two are not the same, and are not made the same by sincere inquiry into the question: what is God?” Dillon defined religion as requiring “faith in a god and worship of that god”, which remains the practical definition in English common law (Sandberg, Russell (2011). Law and Religion. Cambridge University Press. pp. 44–5).

Dillon’s definition and the Segerdal findings were of key importance in 1999 when the Charity Commission decided to reject the Church of Scientology’s application for charitable status. The Commission held that the Church was not established for the advancement of religion because although “it is accepted that Scientology believes in a supreme being,” the “core practices of Scientology, being auditing and training, do not constitute worship as they do not display the essential characteristic of reverence or veneration for a supreme being” (Sandberg, Russell (2011). Law and Religion. Cambridge University Press. pp. 44–5)

The Segerdal definition of “a place of religious worship” still applies to registrations of such places. The court found that in order to be registered, the principal use of the place would have to be religious, regardless of how heavily (or little) it was used for that purpose. As Julian Rivers points out, the law “assumes that religious and non-religious uses are easy to disentangle”, which may not always be the case (Rivers, Julian (2010). The Law of Organized Religions: Between Establishment and Secularism. Oxford University Press. p. 151).

In short, life had moved on since 1970 and a different and broader approach is now required to the 1855 Act. Moreover, while I am sure that Lord Denning was right in his interpretation

of the intentions of the draftsmen in 1855, we are still bound by their intentions some 150 years later?

On the other hand, even if Segerdal is still has an binding effect; it would not preclude the Administrative Court from considering the fact that the understanding of Scientology as a religion had developed since 1970; better and updated evidence is now available and a more expansive approach is now required to the meaning of a place “for religious worship” in what is now a more obviously multi-faith society; the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010 would mean that the distinction drawn by the Court of Appeal between Buddhism and Scientology is no longer tenable.

Epilogue

Whilst I can accept that the term ‘place of meeting for religious worship’ under the 1855 Act should be given an interpretation which reflects the way in which religions are regarded at the present in English Law, and not how they would have been regarded in 1855, and that what constitutes worship should be treated in the same way, yet the words still have to be given effect. The definition established in Segerdal case should still be applied in the English Law as the acts of worship have not changed significantly, and so it remains binding.

The definition of worship in Segerdal, inadequate though it may be for non-theistic and similar beliefs, nonetheless applies to them. Without Segerdal, an updating interpretation might have been possible. But Segerdal, in the absence of a significant change in the way Scientologists worship, still binds us to hold that they do not worship. Even if in principle, an updating interpretation can be applied to an otherwise binding decision on the statutory interpretation and application of the Act, I do not think that times have moved on to the extent required to make Segerdal no longer binding in English Law. The Segerdal case still has a binding effect in determining the definition of Religious worship, worship places etc in the English Law in the 21st Century.

The post Lord Denning’s Religious Worship Place & Relevance in 21st Century appeared first on Weekly BLiTZ.

[Read More]

—–
Source: Weekly Blitz :: Writings