In recent years, those involved in regulating, forming or advising faith communities have had much to contend with: the expansion of the vicarious liability doctrine, the status of ministers of religion and the decision in Shergill v Khaira, not to mention the General Data Protection Regulation. These issues share a common denominator: they require faith communities to give close consideration to the values which they seek to articulate and foster in the expression of their own autonomy and right of self-determination. That is, they serve as a prompt to reconnect with the intellectus and vinculo iuris of their own ecclesial norms. This article is intended to encourage such an exercise and to contribute to a discussion of the potential points of collaboration between the civil law and faith communities in securing dispute resolution by which ecclesial values may be accommodated.

Hate preaching is capable of constituting both hate crime and hate speech, lies at the centre of many religions’ understanding of the manifestation of their religion, and frequently raises the contentious issue of regulation of the use of sacred scriptures. This brief article explores the regulation of hate preaching by criminal law, discussing the particular problems posed by oppositional religious speech, before concluding with suggestions for a number of ways to reduce these problems.

An ecumenical group of experts in church law produced a Statement of Principles of Christian Law based on a comparative examination of the internal regulations of their respective churches. This article examines the detail of the Statement from the point of view of the regulations and practice of Quakers in Britain and concludes that, based as it is on a Trinitarian, sacramental view of ‘the Church’, while there is much in it with which Friends – and members of other non-sacramental, non-hierarchical denominations – would agree, there is also much which has little resonance for them.

The use of credentials in an ecclesiastical context is a means of assuring that a minister is who he or she claims to be and is therefore trained and qualified to exercise ministry within a particular church tradition as determined by individual denominations. The concept and use of credentials has developed over time. Using primary sources in the main, this article examines the use of credentials as a tool for ‘inclusion’ or a means of ‘exclusion’, or both, in the history of the largest Presbyterian church in Southern Africa and its predecessors. The research question under study is to what degree, if any, were credentials used to control ministers and to cleanse and purify the church of radical – such as anti-apartheid – elements?

This comment is based on two recently published reports from the Constitution Unit, University College London, prepared by Professor Robert Hazell and the writer. This work followed a 2016 study ‘The Queen at ninety: the changing role of the monarchy, and future challenges’, which charted the further decline of the sovereign's personal constitutional powers and analysed the remaining functions. While the subsequent exercise was principally directed at examining the royal accession and coronation oaths, work was also undertaken to research the context of the oaths. The outcome was the two reports published in May 2018: ‘Swearing in the new king’, on the oaths, and ‘Inaugurating a new reign’, an account of past coronations and an analysis of the factors that might influence the shape of the next coronation. This article is in two parts: the first concentrates on the next coronation; the second examines the three statutory oaths that a new sovereign must swear, taking in also the traditional non-statutory personal declaration made at the sovereign's first Privy Council meeting. The first part concludes that the next coronation cannot be on the scale of the last and that the rite, although remaining Anglican-led, must find ways to reflect Britain's greater religious diversity. On the oaths, the second part points out that their imposition of personal duties was predicated on a constitutional situation where the sovereign was still head of the executive, rather than now, at most, speaking on its behalf. Granted the present, utterly changed position of the sovereign, alternative reformulations are offered for discussion and, absent amending legislation, suggestions are examined for how announcement clarifying their current meaning might be undertaken.

On 23 March, the European Council agreed the terms of a Brexit transition period under which the United Kingdom's phased departure will last for 21 months, ending in December 2020. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill completed its consideration in the House of Lords with Government defeats on several issues, perhaps the most controversial of which were amendments requiring the Government to explore the option of staying in a customs union (by a majority of 123), limiting the ability to use secondary legislation to change existing EU rights after they have been transposed into domestic law (by a majority of 97) and retaining most of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on the statute book after Brexit (by a majority of 71).