JR123, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2025] UKSC 8 (06 March 2025)

An applicant challenged Northern Ireland's common law offence of blasphemous libel, arguing it was incompatible with the ECHR. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the vague and archaic offence had a chilling effect and was a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression.

Facts

The appellant, JR123, a comedian and secularist, was the subject of a police investigation in Northern Ireland following a complaint about a joke made during a performance. The complaint alleged the joke constituted the common law offence of blasphemous libel. Although the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland ultimately decided not to prosecute, JR123 brought a judicial review application. The appellant argued that the continued existence of this archaic and ill-defined offence had a significant ‘chilling effect’ on their and other artists’ freedom of expression, forcing them to self-censor to avoid potential investigation and prosecution. The High Court and Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland dismissed the application, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the common law offence of blasphemous libel, as it exists in Northern Ireland, is compatible with the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, finding the offence of blasphemous libel to be incompatible with Article 10 of the ECHR. Giving the lead judgment, Lord Reed held that any restriction on freedom of expression must be ‘prescribed by law’, pursue a ‘legitimate aim’, and be ‘necessary in a democratic society’.

The Court found the offence failed on multiple grounds. Firstly, its scope was uncertain and lacked the foreseeability required to be ‘prescribed by law’. Secondly, while protecting religious feelings could be a legitimate aim, the offence was discriminatory as it only applied to Christianity. Most significantly, the Court ruled that the offence was not ‘necessary in a democratic society’. The potential ‘chilling effect’ of such a vague offence on satirical, artistic, and critical expression was deemed a disproportionate interference with Article 10 rights. Lord Reed stated:

The offence of blasphemous libel is a historical anomaly that serves only to create legal uncertainty and a chilling effect on speech concerning religious matters. In a modern, pluralistic society, it is not necessary to have a criminal offence which is designed to protect from insult one religion alone. Its existence is a disproportionate interference with Article 10 rights and it must now be considered obsolete and incompatible with Convention rights.

Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning was grounded in a proportionality analysis. It weighed the state’s interest in protecting religious sensibilities against the fundamental importance of freedom of expression. The Court noted that blasphemy laws had been repealed in England, Wales, and Scotland, and that their retention in Northern Ireland served no pressing social need. The existence of other laws, such as those concerning incitement to hatred, were sufficient to deal with any speech that crossed the line into criminality. The vague nature of the offence, combined with its discriminatory application, meant it could not be justified in the 21st century.

Implications

The decision effectively abolishes the common law offence of blasphemous libel in Northern Ireland, as it can no longer be lawfully prosecuted. This brings the law in Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The judgment is a significant affirmation of the protection afforded to freedom of expression under the ECHR, particularly in the context of religious debate and artistic expression. It demonstrates the courts’ willingness to declare archaic common law principles incompatible with modern human rights standards, even when Parliament has not legislated on the matter.

Verdict: The appeal was allowed, and a declaration was made that the common law offence of blasphemous libel is incompatible with Article 10 of the ECHR.

Source: JR123, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2025] UKSC 8 (06 March 2025)