Pastor cleared over sermon as judge backs right to 'offend, shock or disturb'

Belfast Telegraph
January 5, 2016

https://www.legal-project.org/4477/pastor-cleared-over-sermon-as-judge-backs-right

A born again Christian preacher accused of making grossly offensive remarks about Muslims has been cleared by a court in Northern Ireland.

Pastor James McConnell, 78, from Shore Road, Newtownabbey, Co Antrim, walked free from Belfast Magistrates' Court where he had faced a prosecution under the 2003 Communications Act.

Delivering his reserved judgment, District Judge Liam McNally said: "The courts need to be very careful not to criminalise speech which, however contemptible, is no more than offensive. It is not the task of the criminal law to censor offensive utterances.

"Accordingly I find Pastor McConnell not guilty of both charges."

The high profile evangelical pastor had been charged with two alleged offences - improper use of a public electronic communications network and causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network - after the sermon delivered from the pulpit of his Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle on May 18 2014 was streamed online.

In it he described Islam as a "doctrine spawned in hell" and said he did not trust Muslims.

Although the words upon which the charges were based were offensive, they did not reach the high threshold of being "grossly offensive".

The judge added: "He is a man with strong, passionate and sincerely held beliefs. In my view Pastor McConnell's mindset was that he was preaching to the converted in the form of his own congregation and like-minded people who were listening to his service rather than preaching to the worldwide internet.

"His passion and enthusiasm for his subject caused him to, so to speak, 'lose the run of himself'."

The comments about Islam being "heathen" and "satanic" were protected under human rights legislation.

And when considering the remarks about mistrusting Muslims, Judge McNally said he was satisfied the pastor had not set out to intentionally cause offence.

If the preacher had qualified his remarks, as he did in subsequent media interviews, he could have been spared the legal battle, the court was told.

Judge McNally said: "If he had clarified this in his sermon and set out in a clear and precise way why Sharia law was repugnant to him he could have saved himself a lot of trouble.

"In the manner in which he did express this he has, in my view characterised the followers of an entire religion in a stereotypical way.

"Indeed when he uses the word 'may' in the context of whether there are any good Muslims it leaves open the inference that that might not be exactly right and there may not be any good Muslims in Britain. Either way, he is making it crystal clear that he does not trust any Muslim."

The judgment was delivered to a packed courtroom in just over half an hour.

The distinction between offensive and grossly offensive was an important one and not easily made, the court heard.

"Context and circumstances are highly relevant and as the European Court of Human Rights observed... the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions that offend, shock or disturb the state or any section of the population," said Judge McNally.

As the judge concluded a crowd of about 50 Christian supporters erupted into spontaneous applause.

Throughout proceedings Mr McConnell, who was dressed in a dark grey suit with grey shirt and pink and purple coloured tie, sat alongside his wife Margaret and other families members.

He was not required to sit in the dock.

During the three day trial in December, Mr McConnell spent more than an hour in the witness box giving evidence in his defence. He said he had not intended to provoke, hurt or offend anyone but was unrepentant for preaching the Christian gospel.

He also claimed he had refused the lesser punishment of an informed warning because it would be an insult to Jesus and he did not want to be "gagged" in the future.

The prosecution had claimed it was a "straightforward" case because the words were delivered in a rehearsed sermon to an audience of 2,000 and watched by 700 online, and had been carefully chosen.

Read the complete original version of this item...

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the legal project's free mailing list