Sir James Munby - The secular judiciary in England and Wales

Sir James Munby, Head of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales

In 2013 Sir James Munby gave a speech in which he said that the law of England and Wales is secular, and that Christianity no longer informs its morality or values. He said that "the days are past when the business of judges was the enforcement of morals or religious beliefs."

The Radio 4 series 'Beyond Belief' explores the place of religion and faith in today's complex world and in an episode 'Christianity and the Law', Ernie Rea was joined by Sir Mark Hedley, Joshua Rozenberg and David McIlroy to discuss the relationship between Christianity and the Law. Listen in full here.

The debate centred around the Keynote Address made by Sir James Munby in October 29 2013 here. He said:

"Happily for us, the days are past when the business of the judges was the enforcement of morals or religious belief. That was a battle fought out in the nineteenth century between John Stuart Mill and Sir James Fitzjames Stephen (Stephen J) and in the middle of the last century between Professor Herbert Hart and Sir Patrick Devlin (Devlin J). The philosophers had the better of the argument, and rightly so. 

Judge Peter Murphy - "England and Wales is essentially a Secular Democracy"

His Honour Judge Peter Murphy recently ruled that a female Muslim defendant in a criminal trial must remove her face-covering veil (niqaab) whilst giving evidence. On the relationship between the church and the state, he said this:

"The jurisdiction of England and Wales is essentially (though not formally) a secular democracy. I recognise that the jurisdiction is in the rather odd position that part of it (England) has an established church, while the other part (Wales) does not. But in neither part does the church interfere with the working of the courts. I do not for a moment suggest, to borrow language used in

NS, that courts should be a religion-free zone where religious beliefs and practices must be parked at the door of the court. On the contrary, the Courts must respect and protect religious rights as far as that can properly be done. But in my view, it is necessary to the working of the Crown Court in a democratic society for the Court, not the defendant, to control the conduct of judicial proceedings. A defendant cannot, by claiming to adopt a particular religious practice, oblige the court to set aside its established procedure to accommodate that practice. That would be to privilege religious practice in a discriminatory way, and would adversely affect the administration of justice."

 Adam Wagner covers it here and here.