Scientologist denied right to marry in church

The High Court has today dismissed a claim by a member of the church of Scientology that she was the victim of unlawful religious discrimination after her request to marry in one of its chapels was denied.

The Registrar General of Births, Marriages and Deaths in England and Wales had refused to register the chapel for the solemnisation of marriages on the grounds that it is not ‘a place of meeting for religious worship’.

In R(on the application of Hodkin) v Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2012] EWHC 3635 (Admin), Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed the challenge and supported the view of the registrar.

Louisa Hodkin wished to marry her fiancé at the Church of Scientology, in Queen Victoria Street, London. The couple volunteer at the church.

The court heard that the chapel is not registered under section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, and has to be certified as a ‘meeting place for religious worship’ to enable legally recognised religious marriages to take place under section 26 of the Marriage Act 1949.

Mr Justice Ouseley felt bound by the decision in R v Registrar General ex parte Segerdal [1970] 2 QB 697, in which judges ruled that another Scientology chapel was not a meeting place for religious worship because its services, Lord Denning defining it as a “philosophy” and a not a religion.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill, appearing for both Hodkin and the Church of Scientology, submitted that Scientology as a religion had developed since 1970 and a more expansive approach is needed to apply to the meaning of place ‘for religious worship’.

However, Ouseley J granted leave to appeal, stating: “On what I have read in this case, I would conclude that Scientology was a religion for the purposes of the 1855 Act.”

He continued that there had however been “no significant change in the beliefs of Scientologists or in their services since the decision in Segerdal.

“What has changed is the way in which Scientology describes itself, with a greater emphasis on its being a religion,” he said.

“Forty years on from Segerdal, the Court of Appeal may find the route at least to reconsider its decision in Segerdal, with the fuller material now available.”