The Beth Din and Jewish courts do not make the Archbishop's case

Rob Slack

There is still the risk people will feel pressure to accept the ruling of such a "court" against their wishes. "Honour" killings suggest that pressure might include a threat of murder.

Danvers Baillieu

But sadly Melanie was wrong about "official recognition" of Beth Din judgments. Beth Din judgment can be and routinely are recognised and enforced by the English courts - see here for an example: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2c1de7b3-6b39-470e-931c-3b8b01709ef9 Of course, where a Beth Din judgment is contrary to public policy, it will not be enforced (as in a recent case which I cannot lay my hands on right now). The same would apply to a tribunal applying Sharia law. And also, the parties have to consent to arbitrate in accordance with the rules of the relevant tribunal, be it religious or something like the London Chamber of Commerce.

dsquared

Beth Din judgements are enforceable on anyone who has agreed to subject their dispute to the arbitration of the Beth Din. In fact I would be surprised if the Sharia (ooh scary) decisions of the various Sharia (woo) Councils of Britain weren't enforceable in more or less the same way. By the way, whatever the various pontificators think who have been carefully constructing the mountain of non-halal pig excrement around this subject, the European Convention on Human Rights is directly applicable law in the UK, so even if we went mad and decided to enforce Saudi-style sharia tomorrow, anyone sentenced to having their hands cut off would find the sentence struck down.

B.S.

For once the ( confusion of the words 'masterly' and 'masterful' (endemic these days) seems to have been rather beneficial, if only inadvertently. None would deny that Melanie Phillips's remarks on this subject (and, indeed, on all subjects under the sun) are masterful - that is, forceful and perhaps a little overbearing. Whether they are masterly, however, is perhaps a more debatable point.

Marc Daniels

Sorry, but this is not quite right. The Beth Din can act as an arbitration tribunal for civil cases where both parties agree - basically this means commercial contract disputes. Its decisions are final and binding in the same was as any ordinary arbitration tribunal, save in exceptional cases where it acts contrary to public policy (such as the recent illegality case). But this is nothing to do with Williams' case - he is seeking Sharia courts to have jurisdiction in matters of personal law - marriage and divorce. The Beth Din does not have this power and, as a matter of English law, could not without new legislation. Indeed, I would think that granting this kind of power to the Beth Din or a Sharia court would likely be in breach of the Human Rights Act - and quite right too. Marc

Dag Hammer

Nobody should pretend that Beth Din proceedings are unproblematic. Parties can be pressured not to apply to the civil courts on threat of "excommunication", and there can even be fights between a beth din in one country and another in another. For such a case involving child abduction by a parent, see the unholy mess which went to the House of Lords in In Re H 1997, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1997/12.html.