Government Says It Was ‘Inappropriate’ for Crown Prosecution to Say Parts of Bible Are ‘No Longer Appropriate in Modern Society’

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

The government has said that it was “inappropriate” for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to argue that parts of the Bible are “no longer appropriate in modern society” in a now-dropped prosecution against a British Christian street preacher.

In the House of Lords in December, Baroness Hoey asked the government what assessment they have made of the written statement by the Crown Prosecution Service that the “Bible contains references ‘which are simply no longer appropriate in modern society and which would be deemed offensive if stated in public.’”

Hoey was referring to the Christian preacher, John Dunn, who, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, last month faced criminal prosecution for preaching from the Bible on Swindon High street in Nov. 2020.

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

Corinthians 6

Dunn was preaching 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 charge offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act against Dunn was thrown out, but while trying to secure Dunn’s conviction, the CPS argued in a skeleton argument that parts of the Bible are “abusive” and “no longer appropriate in modern society.”

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

“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 wrote.

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.”

A general view inside the House of Lords in London, on Jan. 21, 2020. Kirsty Wigglesworth/Getty Images

‘Statement Was Inappropriate’

In response to Baroness Hoey’s question, Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con), who specialises in criminal law and is the Advocate General for Scotland, replied stating:

“The Wessex Area of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has undertaken a post-case review and acknowledges that the statement was inappropriate. The statement was not intended to and does not represent a change to published CPS Policy,” he said.

“It is not indicative of a general approach by the CPS to cases involving the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to freedom of expression,” he added.

“As a result of the post-case review, in future, where skeleton arguments are ordered, in cases where there is scope for argument to arise as to rights such as that of freedom of expression, such arguments will be submitted to the Senior District Crown Prosecutor for signing off, prior to service,” said Stewart.

Previously, a CPS spokesman told The Epoch Times 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.

At the time, 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.

Responding to the news, Dunn said: “I am pleased that the government has recognised that the arguments made against me by the CPS were wrong.”

“I faced the prospect of criminal conviction for over two years on these grounds. I hope what has happened will protect other Christians who find themselves unfairly on the wrong side of the law for speaking biblical truth,” he added.

‘Secular Political Orthodoxy’

Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said in a statement that this was a “clear example of overreach from the CPS and demonstrated the extent to which they misunderstand the Bible and freedom of speech.”

She added that their arguments in this case “were so steeped in the prevailing secular political orthodoxy, it was chilling.”

“The Bible and its teachings have historically been 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,” she said.

“This recognition from the government that what happened was inappropriate represents good news for UK Christians, and such arguments must never be made by the CPS again,” said Williams.