Bible-believing street preachers are unarguably brave and invariably faithful. It’s not a gift God gives to every Christian and those who exercise it in our secular Western culture must possess a strong constitution to withstand the vitriol they’ll attract.
They are also at greater risk of arrest, though if the last couple of years are anything to go by – it could be harder than police officers may think to secure a conviction.
Ominous
It has therefore been welcome news that the CPS recently dropped its prosecution against John Dunn, a street preacher charged with a public order offence after a complaint by two lesbian women. While we can rejoice with John over the CPS decision, the case is ominous for two key reasons. First, the case was only dropped because the two complainants refused to engage with the prosecution at the last minute. The trial couldn’t go ahead without evidence. Second, and of greater concern, is the approach of the prosecutor who stated, in a formal prosecution document, that parts of the Bible were ‘offensive’ and ‘no longer appropriate in modern society’. He also attempted to align Scripture verses on slavery and the death sentence with verses on homosexual practices.
The background to the case will not sound unfamiliar. Two women held hands as they walked past John Dunn, who said to them: ‘I hope you’re sisters’ (an unnecessary and provocative question in my own view). They’re not sisters; they’re in a same-sex marriage. He quotes Scripture to them; they take offence and report him to the police, accusing him of saying ‘they will burn in hell’ and that one of them was ‘a devil woman’ (which John denied). He was subsequently charged with a criminal offence under Section 5, Public Order Act.
Opinion as fact
During the pre-trial preparation, the prosecutor sent a document to John’s lawyers which is now in the public domain. Nicholas Hoyle, a senior crown prosecutor, wrote: ‘Whether a statement of Christian belief or not, the Court is being asked to consider whether the language has the potential to cause harassment, alarm or distress. This document is not the forum for religious debate, but the Bible contains other material recognising slavery (Ex.21:7), the death sentence (Ex. 35:2 and Lev. 24:16) and cannibalism (Deut. 28:27).
‘There are references in the Bible which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public.’
These statements are deeply worrying. They demonstrate a wilful ignorance (and misquoting) of the Bible; and make sweeping statements of opinion as though they are fact.
Not biased?
The CPS says it prosecutes ‘without bias’. No reasonable person would consider Hoyle’s statements are objective and unbiased.
The CPS has, over many years, published rafts of guidance on criminal prosecution, on the elements of individual offences, defences and on sentencing. Its guidance note on hate crime states that ‘any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime’ if it ‘is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person’s disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity’.
It’s not hard to see how quoting Scriptural references against, e.g. a gay lifestyle can be caught by this guidance. However, the prosecutor’s statements in a formal prosecution document to the defendant’s lawyers are chilling and a step too far.
Christian Concern (which has supported John Dunn) has now launched a petition calling for the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue guidance to police and prosecutors to uphold free speech and affirm the rights of Christians to preach the Bible. The petition can be found here and readers are urged to sign it.
