Religious ‘courts’

Humanists believe in a secular legal system, where the law applies equally to all people, regardless of religion or belief, and laws are made based on reason, empathy, and evidence and not upon religious or doctrinal considerations.

Policy summary

Problem:
Religious ‘courts’ frequently discriminate against their users on the basis of, for example, gender, while sometimes failing to make clear they are not, in fact, part of the UK legal system.

Consequences:
Women and vulnerable people can be ruled against in these courts unfairly while being led to believe that these courts have legal standing.

Our policy:
We oppose any attempt to incorporate non-statutory religious ‘courts’ into UK law. We want regulation to require such bodies to make it clear that they have no legal standing. We want a separation of state institutions from religious institutions to prevent the privileging of people with certain religions, guarantee equal citizenship, and to make sure public life is inclusive of all. This means ceasing the legal recognition of Church of England ecclesiastical courts.

Recommendation:
The governments of the UK should resist any attempt to incorporate non-statutory ‘religious courts’ into UK law, and introduce new laws to make religious institutions make their legal standing clear to users.

Therefore, we oppose any attempt to incorporate non-statutory ‘religious courts’, such Muslim sharia councils, Jewish beth din, Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authorities, or the Sikh Court, into UK law. The Church of England’s ecclesiastical courts do have legal standing in English law and we want this removed. Individuals are free to govern their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs or cultural traditions and, therefore, may seek advice from these ‘courts’. But they should not have legal standing.

We call for these religious institutions to be required to make clear that their recommendations are not part of the national law and cannot be enforced through the national courts, unless the parties have explicitly signed an arbitration agreement enforceable under the Arbitration Act 1996. Any religious ‘court’ or arbitration body that fails to make clear that it lacks legal status or advises on other forms of legal redress should be outlawed.

In depth

Church of England ecclesiastical courts

The Church of England’s ecclesiastical courts are the only religious courts that operate within the English legal framework. Each diocese of the Church of England has a court which is presided over by a judge appointed by the bishop. These courts date back to the 11th century and traditionally held jurisdiction over defamation, probate, and matrimonial causes, as well as over both clergy and laity in relation to matters relating to church discipline and morality more generally. These powers were significantly scaled back in the 19th century to cover just church property and criminal conduct in relation to the clergy.

However, there are two areas where they enjoy a measure of power over those who are not members of the Church of England, namely the power of consistory courts with regards to listed buildings owned by the Church, and the power of the Court of Faculties over the admission to and regulation of notaries public. Although it is rare for these courts to rule on matters that are external to the Church, they were put on a statutory footing by the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963. We think this should be reversed, and the courts reformed so that they only have powers over non-legal matters that are internal to the Church of England.

Other religious ‘courts’

Other ‘religious courts’, most notably sharia councils, Jewish beth din, Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authorities, and the Sikh Court, vary regarding their status in UK law. Any judgment they pass is advisory and is not binding upon the individuals involved. It does not override rulings made by national courts. These ‘courts’ often interpret the ‘law’ in terms of their religious doctrine, including affording an inferior status to women. However this is not the case if the parties sign an arbitration agreement (as is possible for the London Beth Din and the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal as well as other Jewish batei din and Sharia-based panels).

There is substantial evidence that women are not treated equally in some of these ‘courts’ and that spousal or family cohesion is permitted to influence judgments, particularly concerning claims of domestic violence and inheritance. There have been reported instances of vulnerable women from some religious communities being led to believe that ‘religious courts’ have legal standing when granting child custody following the breakdown of a marriage. We support the work of women’s organisations highlighting and working on these issues.

What we’re doing

Humanists UK has worked for many years with ethnic minority women’s groups, lawyers, and others working directly with women who use sharia councils in order to develop our own thinking and policy on these issues. We have also spoken publicly on the issue of sharia law and women’s rights on numerous occasions.

We oppose any move to give statutory power or official recognition to these courts. While freedom of association is a right that we support, we remain concerned that individuals may not know they are not dealing with real courts, or may be signing up to binding civil arbitration agreements without their full knowledge. We call upon the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to monitor the impact on women using these alternative religious systems. We want legislation passed so as to require any such religious institutions to make clear to their users that they are not legal courts and their judgments are non-binding.

We also support people who have left high-control religions through our programme, Faith to Faithless. That includes through its helpline. Sometimes they have experienced issues with religious courts and we support them with that.

Appendix: Past work on this issue

In 2018, an independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales recommended changes to offer greater protection for Muslim women in family law and divorce, including the creation of an official regulatory body for ‘sharia courts’. This recommendation was rejected by the UK Government because it risked giving legitimacy to quasi-legal institutions that do not currently have any legal standing in UK law. The Government is still considering the implementation of this review.
In 2014, we successfully lobbied the Law Society to withdraw its guidance note on sharia-compliant wills. Although we respect the right of individuals to make provisions in their wills how they wish, the Law Society was wrong in publishing a document giving preference to one conservative, narrow, and exclusive interpretation of Islam.
In 2011, we supported the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill proposed by Baroness Cox as a private member’s bill in the House of Lords. The bill aimed to make it a criminal offence to falsely claim that a sharia ‘court’ has a legal jurisdiction over family and criminal law. Perpetrators would face a prison sentence of up to five years.