Search

This paper considers how three jurisdictions, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, have sought to reconcile freedom of religion with equality rights, particularly in the commercial context, and particularly in relation to sexual orientation. The recent decisions of the United Kingdom Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court form the backdrop for that discussion. It is argued that the former made piecemeal, and misleading, use of American case law, and a fuller consideration of that jurisdiction's position was warranted, and would have led to a different view of the recent American decision. It argues that the United Kingdom Supreme Court was in error in viewing a message on a cake ordered from a baker as an example of the baker's expression, leading it to an incorrect conclusion at odds with statutory mandates in the commercial sphere around refusals of service. Both high court decisions risk undermining progress on the equality front. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rule that ignorance or mistake of law is no excuse is one of the pillars of the criminal law. However, it can prove problematic in some cases including those where an individual commits an offence in reliance on incorrect official advice. This paper argues that the orthodox judicial approach to such claims fails to address the concern that the defendant is held responsible for what is essentially the state's own mistake. Rather than advocating a full defence of officially induced error of law, a more appropriate solution is for the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent an abuse of process by staying the proceedings. This ‘procedural’ approach, which identifies the state's role in the commission of the offence, has recently been adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada, and has the potential to be applied in other common law jurisdictions including Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]