header-logo header-logo

McFarlane appeal refused

06 May 2010
Issue: 7416 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

High Court rules against McFarlane & confirms meaning of discrimination
A relationship counsellor, sacked by Relate Avon for refusing to give sex therapy to same-sex couples, has had his legal challenge turned down.

Gary McFarlane, who was sacked in 2008, claimed Relate refused to accommodate his religious beliefs.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, had called in a witness statement for judges with a “proven sensitivity and understanding of religious issues” to hear the case.

Referring to the case of London Borough of Islington v Ladele [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, in which a registrar refused on religious grounds to perform civil partnership ceremonies, Lord Carey said the field of sexual ethics and Christian teaching was complex, and it was “regrettable” that senior members of the judiciary felt able to make disparaging comments and to use the “unbefitting” descriptive word, “discriminatory”.

Delivering his judgment in McFarlane v Relate Avon however, Lord Justice Laws called Lord Carey’s views “misplaced” and “mistaken”.
“The judges have never, so far as I know, sought to equate the condemnation by some Christians of homosexuality on religious grounds with homophobia, or to regard that position as ‘disreputable’,” he said.
“Nor have they likened Christians to bigots. They administer the law in accordance with the judicial oath: without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
Laws LJ said McFarlane could not “sensibly” be distinguished from Ladele.
“The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot...be justified,” he said.
“It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”

Philip Henson, head of employment law at Bargate Murray, says: “I doubt that this will be the end of the road for Mr McFarlane, as he has become exalted by the media as one of the ‘persecuted Christians’ as enounced by Lord Carey. “Prior to [this] hearing, the Employment Appeal Tribunal took into consideration the equal opportunities policy of Relate and also the code of ethics and principles of good practice of the British Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy. No doubt the court would have placed a similar emphasis on those documents.”

Issue: 7416 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll