Source: http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/tag/religious-freedom/
Timestamp: 2014-12-17 23:05:09
Document Index: 106021357

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKSC ', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 1']

religious freedom | UK Human Rights Blog
religious freedom	June 11, 2014 by David Hart QC	Supreme Court reduces religious no-go area for courts
Khaira v. Shergill [2014] UKSC 33, 11 June 2014 read judgment
Adam Wagner assisted two of the respondents in this case on behalf of Bindmans, solicitors, but was not involved in the writing of this post.
The Supreme Court has just reversed a decision of the Court of Appeal (see my previous post here) that a dispute about the trust deeds of two Sikh religious charities was non-justiciable and so could not and should not be decided by the Courts. By contrast, the SC said that two initial issues concerning the meaning of trust deeds were justiciable, and, because of this, further issues which did raise religious issues had to be determined by the courts.
The wider interest of the case is its tackling of this tricky concept of non-justiciability.
Share:EmailShare on TumblrLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Art. 9 | Thought/Conscience/Religion, Case comments, Case law, In the news, Religion	| Tagged judicial no-mans land, non-justiciability, religious freedom, sihkism	July 22, 2012 by David Hart QC	Religious no-go area for the courts with their “costly crudities”
Share:EmailShare on TumblrLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Art. 9 | Thought/Conscience/Religion, Case comments, Case law, In the news, Religion	| Tagged judicial no-mans land, religious freedom, sihkism	| 1 Comment
June 24, 2010 by Rosalind English	Polish religious education breached freedom of conscience rights of pupil
Grzelak v. Poland (no. 7710/02) – read judgment
The European Court of Human Rights has found that A Polish boy who refused to attend religious instruction classes for reasons of personal conviction had been discriminated against human rights because of a policy of reflecting that non-attendance in school reports.
The applicant Mateus Grzelak had been brought up in a non-religious tradition by his parents who were also applicants. Mateus began his schooling at the age of seven, and in conformity with his parents’ wishes, he did not attend religious instruction. Doctrinal classes were scheduled in the middle of the school day, between various compulsory courses.
Share:EmailShare on TumblrLike this:Like Loading...	Posted in Art. 14 | Anti-Discrimination, Art. 9 | Thought/Conscience/Religion, Case comments, Children, Education, Margin of Appreciation, Protocol 2 Art. 1 | Right to education, Religion	| Tagged human rights, Poland, religious freedom	This blog is by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free. The blog's editors are:
Join 35,686 other followers
BLOG POSTS (1,967)
In the news (1,426)
Time for human rights to get down to business? - Adam Smith-Anthony