A week that saw everything from an important ruling on the scope of the Guidance on the Prevent Duty to mistaken identity in a Cardiff pub..
The Prevent Duty, under which “specified authorities” – includiing schools and colleges – must show “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”, is somewhat controversial. Supporters insist that it is fundamentally about safeguarding students against all forms of extremism, while critics argue that Prevent predominantly targets – and stigmatises – Muslim communities. Continue reading →
After the statement by the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion on the vote by the Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church on same-sex marriage, the Primus, the Most Revd David Chillingworth, has issued the following response:
“The Secretary General of the Anglican Communion has issued a statement commenting on Thursday’s decision by the General Synod of the Scottish Episcopal Church to amend its Canons to permit same-sex marriage. The statement recognises that the Provinces of the Anglican Communion can each take these decisions within their own life. But I think it is important that I should comment on some other aspects of what the statement says and their implications for the continuing life of the Anglican Communion. Continue reading →
In a further guest post, David Scrooby, an attorney of the Republic of South Africa, follows up his previous post on the dispute between Bishop Mlibo Ngewu and the Anglican Church of Southern Africa.
In 1930 a hippopotamus named Huberta became famous as she walked 1600 miles from Lake St Lucia in northern KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) to near Grahamstown in the Eastern Cape, crossing over the great rivers of the Diocese of Mzimvubu (DOM).
Reflecting this epic journey, Mlibo Ngewu has moved from the KZN High Court to the Eastern Cape High Court, and in Ngewu v Archbishop Makgoba & Others (EL197/2016, ECD497/2016  Eastern Cape Local Division, East London Circuit (25 May 2017), (unreported) his position as Bishop of the Diocese of Mzimvubu was the cause of further litigation in a secular court. He was again unsuccessful and Acting Judge Nicola Molony dismissed the application for an interdict against the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, with costs. Continue reading →
In a guest post, David Scrooby, an attorney of the Republic of South Africa, discusses a highly unusual recent case – the first of its kind in over 150 years…
The case of Bishop Mlibo Ngewu v The Anglican Church of Southern Africa and Ten Others  ZAKZPHC 88is about the first canonical trial of a Bishop in Southern Africa since that of Bishop Colenso in 1864. The judgment of Her Ladyship Sharmaine Balton J, handed down in the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg on 6 October 2016, may not have the impact of that of the Privy Council in 1865 (to which Colenso appealed) or the canonical depth of that of the South African Labour Court in Cape Town in Church of the Province of Southern Africa, Diocese of Cape Town v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others  ZALC 141. However, the judgment is important in a number of respects. Continue reading →
Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union reads as follows:
Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”
If a withdrawal agreement can be reached, it must be approved by the European Parliament and then by the Council, by Qualified Majority Voting. Continue reading →