Crown Prosecution Service Claimed Some of the Bible Is ‘No Longer Appropriate to Modern Society’ in Lawsuit

John Dunn in an undated file photo. Courtesy of Christian Concern

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) argued that parts of the Bible are “abusive” and “no longer appropriate in modern society” in a now-dropped prosecution against a British street preacher.

John Dunn, 55, was preaching in Swindon, southwest England, in November 2020 when two women walked past holding hands and he said, “I hope you are sisters.” They replied that they were in a same-sex marriage.

He then said, “It says in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God,” which is a verse from 1 Corinthians 6.

The two women reported Dunn to the police, describing his comments as “biblical speak.“ They also alleged that he had shouted at them that “they will burn in hell,” which he denied.

Dunn preaches despite having lost his voice box following throat cancer.

A man prays in a church as shoppers make their last minute purchases on Christmas Eve in Birmingham, England, on Dec. 24, 2018. Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Public Order Act

Dunn voluntarily attended a police station for an interview and at the station, he was told if he tried to leave he would be arrested and was then summonsed for an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act.

In the CPS’s skeleton argument, it alleged that he used “threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”

Skeleton arguments are documents filed with the court and exchanged between the parties in advance of a court hearing.

Lawyers instructed by the Christian Legal Centre argued in Dunn’s defence that the interview and subsequent prosecution breached his human rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights regarding freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and expression.

The case was dropped out after the two women reportedly “refused to engage” with the case after making the initial allegations.

‘Fair, Independent, and Objective Assessments of the Evidence’

But prior to a court appearance but in the intermediary period, lawyers for the CPS wrote to Dunn’s legal team: “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.”

They also cited references to slavery in the biblical books of Exodus and Leviticus and references to the death sentence.

“(Exodus 21:7), the death sentence (Exodus 35:2 and Leviticus 24:16) and cannibalism (Deuteronomy 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,” they added.

A CPS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that the document was sent to the defence and not said in court and stressed this was “drawing comparison to other ideas and practices that are no longer acceptable.”

“On the day of the trial the complainants could not be located to provide vital evidence for the prosecution, which resulted in us offering no evidence,” he said.

“It is not the function of the CPS to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent, and objective assessments of the evidence to put our case before the court,” he added.

‘Deeply Concerning’

Expert evidence was provided in response to the CPS’s arguments by Christian theologian Martin Parsons.

“The Bible has had a unique status within British constitutional history,” said Parsons.

“The suggestion by the Crown that there are parts of the Bible ‘which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public,’ is one that if accepted would have significant constitutional implications,” he added.

In a statement, Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “The approach of the CPS to this case, and the Bible in general, however, is deeply concerning. The Bible and its teachings are the foundation of our society and has provided many of the freedoms and protections that we still enjoy today. It is extraordinary that the prosecution, speaking on behalf of the state, could say that the Bible contains abusive words which, when spoken in public, constitute a criminal offence.

“The view from the CPS was that the Bible is offensive and contains illegal speech which should not be shared in public,” she said.

“‘Offence’ is an entirely subjective concept and is easily manipulated to shut down viewpoints that people simply don’t like. Any suggestion that there is a right not to be offended must be strongly resisted. In today’s democracy, we need the freedom to debate, challenge and disagree,” added Williams.