‘A Christian preacher who was held by police for 15 hours without water or food has won £13,000 in compensation for wrongful imprisonment.’
The Independent, 31st March 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘One of Britain’s top judges has said it is not difficult to see why British Christians “feel their religious beliefs are not being sufficiently respected” in a speech about the clash between the rights of believers and sexual equality.’
The Independent, 21st March 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Where the decision of a public body was shown to be unlawful, the court should be reluctant to refuse relief on the ground that, acting lawfully, the decision-maker would have reached the same decision, particularly if the power had been exercised not for its statutory purpose but for an ulterior motive. In such a case the court should grant appropriate relief.’
WLR Daily, 27th January 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Couple told they could face jail after admitting manslaughter of their son Ndingeko, who died from rickets after his parents insisted on strict eating regime as part of their religion.’
Daily Telegraph, 27th January 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A London transport ban on a Christian charity’s posters suggesting gay people can “move out of homosexuality” has been put in doubt by a court of appeal judgment that ordered an investigation into whether the mayor, Boris Johnson, acted “for an improper purpose”.’
The Guardian, 27th January 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Employment Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and now the Court of Appeal have all agreed that an employer was justified in requiring a Christian to work on Sundays in Mba v London Borough of Merton.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 17th December 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘The recent confirmation by the Supreme Court that it was unlawful discrimination for Christian hotel owners to refuse a double-bedded room to a same-sex couple was of considerable interest as the latest in a string of high-profile cases involving religious belief and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and the first such judgment involving the highest court in the land).’
Legal Week, 12th December 2013
Source: www.legalweek.com
‘The recent confirmation by the Supreme Court that it was unlawful discrimination for Christian hotel owners to refuse a double-bedded room to a same-sex couple was of considerable interest as the latest in a string of high-profile cases involving religious belief and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and the first such judgment involving the highest court in the land). We have already provided a summary of the facts and judgment here, and our post on the Court of Appeal ruling can be found here.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th December 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘An employment tribunal was wrong to conclude that refusing to work on a Sunday for religious reasons should not be protected under discrimination law, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th December 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Mba v Merton London Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1562; [2013] WLR (D) 474
‘A provision put in place by a council care home requiring a worker who was a Christian whose genuine belief that Sunday was a day of worship and rest to work on Sundays as rostered discriminated against the worker but was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of running the care home effectively.’
WLR Daily, 5th December 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Ms Eweida, you may recall, is the British Airways employee who wanted to wear a cross on a necklace over her uniform so that others could see it. She considered that that was a religious belief. Over-simplifying, doing what she wanted to do meant a breach of her employer’s dress code. Ms Eweida complained that, amongst other things, she was the victim of an act of indirect discrimination.’
Employment Law Blog, 5th December 2013
Source: www.employment11kbw.com
‘Mba v London Borough Of Merton [2013] EWCA Civ 1562. The Court of Appeal has dismissed the appeal of a Christian care worker against the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that a requirement that she work on Sundays indirectly discriminated against her on the grounds of religion or belief.’
Uk Human Rights Blog, 5th December 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘A Christian care worker who claimed she was forced to leave her job after refusing to work Sundays because of her faith has lost her legal appeal.’
BBC News, 5th December 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Bull and another (Appellants) v Hall and another (Respondents) [2013] UKSC 73 | UKSC 2012/0065 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 27th November 2013
‘The owners of a Christian guesthouse who were ordered to pay damages for turning away a gay couple have lost their UK Supreme Court fight.”
BBC News, 27th November 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘R (on the application of London Christian Radio Ltd & Christian Communications Partnerships) v Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (Respondent) & Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Interested Party) [2013] EWCA Civ 1495.The ban on Christian Radio’s proposed advert seeking data on the “marginalisation of Christians” in the workplace was lawful and did not constitute an interference with free speech, the Court of Appeal has ruled. When determining whether a radio or television advertisement was “political” fur the purposes of Section 321(2)(b) of the Communications Act 2003 the court should consider the text objectively; the motives of the advertiser were irrelevant.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 21st November 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The words “an advertisement which is directed towards a political end”, in section 321(2)(b) of the Communications Act 2003, invited attention to the subject-matter of the advertisement, and not the motives and intentions of the advertiser unless those intentions were expressed or were implicit in the language of the advertisement itself. An objective examination of the text of the advertisement alone was required, and the word “political” should not be given a narrow and artificially restrictive interpretation given the wide scope of the examples provided in section 321(3).’
WLR Daily, 19th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The words “an advertisement which is directed towards a political end”, in section 321(2)(b) of the Communications Act 2003, invited attention to the subject-matter of the advertisement, and not the motives and intentions of the advertiser unless those intentions were expressed or were implicit in the language of the advertisement itself. An objective examination of the text of the advertisement alone was required, and the word “political” should not be given a narrow and artificially restrictive interpretation given the wide scope of the examples provided in section 321(3).’
WLR Daily, 19th November 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Campaigners are to attempting to launch a legal challenge to the Christian coronation of future monarchs in an attack on the most powerful symbol of the union between church and state.”
The Guardian, 10th November 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Do you object to swearing an oath on the Bible? Sorry, I hope that question didn’t put you off your stride when settling down to read this article. It’s the same question witnesses are asked when they’re about to give evidence in criminal trials.”
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 1st November 2013
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024