Commentators have been speculating today on the Church of Scientology gaining charitable status, following a Supreme Court ruling that a Scientology chapel is a place of religious worship under law.
In 1999, the Church of Scientology tried to gain charitable status. But the Charity Commission ruled that “Scientology is not a religion for the purposes of English charity law” and refused its application.
A spokeswoman for the Charity Commission said today that if the Church reapplied, it would now “have to consider the impact from this [the court’s ruling] on us”.
According to the Independent, the government will be seeking legal advice on whether the Church of Scientology may now qualify for charitable status.
And the Independent also reported that a government source warned that the decision “could be opening the floodgates” to a host of other groups also claiming to be religions and hoping for their own relief in business rates.
However, Michael King, a partner at law firm, Stone King, told civilsociety.co.uk that while being a religion may help an organisation acquire charitable status, much more is required.
Firstly, while the advancement of religion is a charitable purpose under law, if an organisation’s governing document permits the pursuit of other non-charitable purposes, charitable status will be denied.
Further, King said: “the organisation must meet the “public benefit” requirement in order to be a charity. Its purposes must be beneficial to the public and any possible detriment or harm must not outweigh that benefit.”
King added that if the Church of Scientology tried to get charitable status again, it would lead to a rehash of the Church's founder's well-stated views.
Its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, is often famously quoted as stating: "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."
King also said that things like Tom Cruise’s break-up from his wife Katie Holmes would not go down well with the Charity Commission.
“And there are parallels with the Plymouth Brethren. There have been situations where people have announced that they have been brainwashed or harassed. We don’t know whether it’s true or not. But the Charity Commission will take it into account, as it is the opposite to public benefit, and could be considered detriment.”
He added that it was interesting that in Australia and the US, the Church of Scientology was considered a religion for tax purposes. “It’s not impossible,” he said. “The Supreme Court ruling has advanced the issue. But I’m not convinced it will happen.
“Having a religious belief system is not quite enough, you need to focus on the main activities of the organisation.”
However, the Church said the law had to be applied evenly to all bodies. "The Supreme Court has said that Scientology fits within the meaning of religion and for it to be treated differently from other religions would be unjust," it said in a statement. "We are very pleased with this ruling and are particularly delighted for Louisa and Ale and wish them all the best for their married life together."
Law firm Withers acted on behalf of 25 -year-old Louisa Hodkin who wanted a legal right to marry her fiancé Alessandro Calcioli in the chapel of the London Church of Scientology.
Paul Hewitt, the Withers partner who acted in the case, told civilsociety.co.uk: "The judgment doesn't make reference to the charitable or tax status of the Church because that was never part of the original application. However, as the Church's statement mentions, Lord Toulson does make clear that to treat Scientologists differently to those of other religions would be 'illogical, discriminatory and unjust'."
The Supreme Court’s decision overturns a Court of Appeal ruling from 1970. In his judgment, agreed by his fellow Supreme Court judges, led by Lord Neuberger who is President of the Supreme Court, Lord Toulson describes the historic prohibition as “illogical, discriminatory and unjust”.
Hodkin was represented at the hearing by Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC and Naina Patel from Blackstone Chambers, instructed by Withers solicitors. After the judgment, her solicitor, Paul Hewitt, a partner at Withers, said:
“The Supreme Court’s judgment is a victory for the equal treatment of religions in the modern world. We are delighted at the outcome - it always felt wrong that Louisa was denied the simple right, afforded to members of other religions, to enjoy a legal marriage ceremony in her own Church.”
