Mr Reid died in March 2023. He had been an avowed atheist all his life and was resolutely opposed to the practice of burial; but because he had lost touch with his family, those responsible for his funeral mistakenly arranged for him to be buried in the area of Bognor Regis Town Cemetery consecrated for the rites of the Church of England. When his family learned what had happened, they petitioned for a faculty for his exhumation.

On 22 May, standing outside the door of No. 10 in pouring rain (and for some unfathomable reason sans umbrella), the Prime Minister announced that there would be a General Election on 4 July and Parliament was duly prorogued on 24 May and dissolved on 30 May. Before that, however, there was a flurry of legislative business by agreement between the two front benches.

On 6 December 2023, seven-year-old William Brown was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver when he was retrieving his football from the road outside his home. A Year 3 pupil at St Eanswythe's Church of England Primary School in Folkestone, he had walked through the grounds of St Mary and St Eanswythe's Church every day on his way to school and had attended services there. His parents wanted to bury him in the churchyard, but although the Vicar was willing to conduct the burial, the churchyard had been closed by Order in Council in 1857 under the provisions of the Burial Act 1855, with only one exception being made for a burial in 1898. Because the churchyard had been closed, under section 1 of that Act his burial would require an Order of the Privy Council.

Michaela School is avowedly secular and operates under a very disciplined regime. It has a high proportion of Muslim pupils, and in 2023 the school's governing body decided to prohibit pupils from performing prayer rituals on its premises – regardless of religion – after the Headteacher had banned prayer rituals as an interim measure. Muslims are required to pray five times a day; and while TTT, a Muslim, accepted that the requirements of the school day meant that she could not always pray during the appropriate period, she wanted to perform the midday prayer (Duhr) in autumn and winter during the school lunch break – which, she argued, was ‘free time’. It was argued for TTT that the school's refusal violated her rights under Article 9 ECHR (Ground 1); that the policy discriminated indirectly against Muslims, contrary to section 85(2)(d) and/or (f) of the Equality Act 2010 read with section 19 (Ground 2); and that in introducing the policy the school had failed to have ‘due regard’ to the need to eliminate discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, contrary to the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the 2010 Act (Ground 3). She also claimed to have been subject to two procedurally unfair ‘fixed terms of exclusion’ because she had not been allowed to respond to the allegations against her before her exclusions (Ground 4).

JR87, the first respondent, now nine, attended a controlled primary school in Belfast and took part in non-denominational Christian religious education (RE) and collective worship (CW). Her parents described themselves as ‘broadly humanist’ and had not raised their daughter in any religious tradition. Once she began attending school, however, they noticed that she would say a prayer before eating and ask them questions about God and religion. They voiced their concerns to the school about its RE teaching and were told that its provision of RE and CW was ‘bible-based’, followed the core syllabus for education and complied with the relevant legislation. They challenged this, arguing that the relevant legislation contravened their Convention rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of Protocol 1 (‘A2P1’). They were successful in the lower court and the Department of Education appealed.

The petitioner sought a faculty for the exhumation of her mother's body from a consecrated burial ground, where she had recently been buried, in order to re-inter her in another consecrated burial ground, within the same diocese. The general rule enunciated by the Court of Arches in Re Blagdon Cemetery is that because of the theological principle that Christian burial is final, a faculty for exhumation will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. In this case, however, the petition was brought because of the proximity of the mother's grave to those of close family members of the petitioner's ex-husband, who had been violent and abusive towards her and her children over a period of some eight years. Neither the petitioner nor her children could visit her mother's grave because it caused them flashbacks, and the petitioner's GP confirmed that she was having nightmares and panic attacks and was suffering from anxiety and depression.

On 4 December, the Home Secretary unveiled a new package of measures to reduce immigration – a matter of great interest to faith communities, given that some of them depend fairly heavily on clergy and lay-workers from overseas to sustain their pastoral ministries. One of the elements in his statement to the Commons was a decision to ‘increase the skilled worker earnings threshold by a third to £38,700 from next spring, in line with the median full-time wage for those kinds of jobs’ and to raise the minimum income for family visas ‘to the same threshold as the minimum salary threshold for skilled workers, which is £38,700’.1

In April 2023, the House of Bishops of the Province of the Church of Uganda elected Canon Godfrey Kasana as Bishop of Luwero. Before his consecration could take place, however, a member of the church submitted a petition alleging that he was unsuitable for consecration on grounds of adultery – and in June the House of Bishops revoked his nomination. The respondents, in effect, sought judicial review of that decision, while the Archbishop argued that the claim was brought against the wrong party and was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

Probably the biggest legal news of the period under consideration was the judgment of the Supreme Court in R (AAA (Syria) & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42, [2023] WLR 4433, in which it held unanimously that the Government's policy of sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda was unlawful. One critical issue was that under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a right under the ECHR – and the Secretary of State is a public authority for that purpose.

The Bill of Rights Bill was withdrawn on 27 June, signalling what appears to be a major change of policy. After the withdrawal announcement had been made, The Times quoted Dominic Raab as suggesting that ‘All the wrong people will celebrate’ – among whom is your correspondent.

On 21 April, Dominic Raab resigned as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, to be replaced by Alex Chalk KC. On 8 May, The Times reported that the Bill of Rights Bill was to be dropped and that the Ministry of Justice had told its reporters that the new Justice Secretary had been ‘looking carefully’ at the Bill, while another Government source had described the Bill as a ‘complete mess’.