Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-nptnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-19T10:56:21.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Blasphemy

The Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Working Group on Offences against Religion and Public Worship1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In 1977 the House of Lords in R v Lemon unanimously asserted that the offence of blasphemy had survived a long period of desuetude, and remained very much alive and capable of being used. This surprised many. There had been no prosecution for the offence for sixty-five years. Lord Goddard had once declared it ‘obsolescent’, Lord Denning had described it as a ‘dead letter’, and in 1959 the Society for the Abolition of the Blasphemy Laws had abolished itself. Despite this, and despite disagreement among their Lordships as to the intention or mens rea of the offence, they had no doubt that it still existed as a criminal offence. Indeed, Lord Scarman expressly disassociated himself from the view that the offence ‘serves no useful purpose in modern law’.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 1989

References

2. (1979) 1 All E.R. 898 (See alos (1978) 3 All E.R. 175).

3. ibid. p.421.

4. ibid, p.927.

5. Offences against Religion and Public Worship. Working Paper No. 79.Google Scholar

6. Law Com. No. 145.

7. (1979) 1 All E.R. at p. 921.

8. GS Misc.286.

9. Law Com. No. 145 pp 41 and 42.

10. GS Misc. 286 p.4.

11. ibid, pp 14 and 15.

12. 10 October 1988.

13. Law Com. No. 145 p.20.

14. 1981 Crim.L.R.810 at p.815.

15. Law Com. No. 145 p.42.

16. GS Misc. 286 p. 10.

17. ibid. p.19.

18. (1979) 1 A11 E.R. at p. 921.

19. 1981 Crim. L.R.810 at pp.815 & 816.

20. ibid. p.812.

21. GS Misc. 286 p.6.