JURIST - Paper Chase: Sunday, February 12, 2012

[JURIST] The UK High Court of Justice ruled Friday that the Bideford Town Council does not have authority to conduct prayers at the beginning of its official meetings. The judgment [opinion, PDF] followed a Judicial Review initiated by the National Secular Society (NSS) [advocacy website; press release] to challenge the practice of prayers as part of the formal business of council meetings, attendance at which is mandatory for local councillors. Even though prayer was conducted at meetings before attendance was taken, with councillors told they could abstain from such portions of meetings, the prayer was included in the formal list of items sent to councillors when they were summoned, and was included in the meeting minutes later sent out. Justice Ouseley wrote for the High Court:

The duties of Parish councillors and the way in which a Parish Council must conduct its business are laid down in the Local Government Act 1972 ... There is no specific statutory power to say prayers or to have any period of quiet reflection as part of the business of the Council ... Accordingly, I have come to the view that the Council has no power to hold prayers as part of a formal Council meeting, or to summon Councillors to a meeting at which such prayers are on the agenda.

Ouseley rejected the Council's argument for statutory authority—that it may conduct other "functions" not specifically listed in the Local Government Act—on the basis that prayer is not a "function" under the Act. Ouseley made clear that his ruling does not affect whether Councillors can hold prayer before meetings, but to conduct it at the formal beginning of meetings is not allowed. Ouseley also ruled that if the practice were lawful, that under the law "the manner in which the practice is carried out in the circumstances of Bideford does not infringe" on individual human rights, nor does it unlawfully discriminate on the grounds of an individual's lack of religious belief.

NSS is a British organization committed to promoting separation of church and state. It brought the action against the Bideford Town Council after atheist Council member Clive Bone complained about the prayer. Although NSS was pleased with the judgment, some Christian groups have questioned what its effects will be. Christian Institute [advocacy website; press release] spokesman Simon Calvert noted his group "welcome[s] the finding that the saying of prayers isn't discriminatory, or a breach of equality laws, or human rights laws." He believes the ruling was purely based on statutory construction, not on whether the prayer infringes on rights, so that an amendment or passage of a new law could make prayer at meetings lawful. Last month the US Supreme Court [official website] declined to review [JURIST report] a case concerning whether a county board of commissioners in North Carolina violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment [LII backgrounder] by opening their public meetings with prayers.

[JURIST] Malaysian officials confirmed Sunday that a Saudi reporter facing a possible death penalty charge in his country was handed over to Saudi officials for deportation. Malaysia national spokesman Ramli Yoosuf announced that Hamza Kashgari, 23, was flown back to Saudi Arabia [AP report] under a warrant for arrest issued Monday by Saudi authorities. A lawyer appointed by Kashgari's family has stated that the move was unlawful because he had previously obtained a court order to block deportation. Kashgari faces charges of blasphemy, a crime punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. Kashgari was threatened with death penalty charges after making anti-Muhammad comments on Twitter on Muhammad's birthday last Saturday. Kashgari has since deleted the Tweets and apologized, but that did not stop the public uproar against him. He was arrested upon his arrival [Reuters report] in Malaysia Thursday as part of an Interpol [official website] operation between Saudi and Malaysian police officials. Although the two countries have good relations, Malaysia does not have a specific agreement with Saudi Arabia that would have obligated Kashgari's deportation.

Last month the UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights [official website] criticized Saudi Arabia for its increased use of the death penalty [JURIST report], which has tripled since 2010. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW) [advocacy websites] have also criticized the country for cruel punishment and lack of human rights protections [JURIST reports]. Malaysia has been recently criticized by the UN [JURIST report] for taking steps away from protecting its citizens' rights to freedom of expression, although in Malaysia blasphemy is not punishable by death. Both AI and HRW [press releases] urged Malaysia not to deport Kashgari.

[JURIST] Utah's Fourth Judicial District Court [official website] Wednesday granted a death row inmate's request to be put to death by firing squad. Michael Archuleta, 49, was convicted in 1989 of first-degree murder for the beating death of a college student, and is now set to be executed by firing squad [order, PDF] on April 5. Judge Donald Eyre Jr. [official profile] issued the execution warrant under a Utah statute [text] that sets "lethal intravenous injection" as the official method of execution, unless "a court holds that a defendant has a right to be executed by a firing squad, [in which case] the method of execution for that defendant shall be a firing squad." The exemption applies to death row inmates like Archuleta who had already requested a firing squad when they were abolished by statute in 2004. The decision to honor Archuleta's request was likely made to avoid further execution delays that could result from an ongoing shortage of lethal injection drugs, created last year when the main US manufacturer ceased production of a key anesthetic used in the three-drug "cocktail" that makes up a lethal injection. If the execution is carried out, Archuleta will be the fourth prisoner to be put to death by firing squad since the US Supreme Court [official website] reinstated capital punishment [JURIST news archive] in 1976. Each of the other three firing squad executions also took place in Utah.

The last person to be executed by firing squad was Ronnie Lee Gardner [BBC backgrounder], who was put to death [JURIST report] in June 2010 after the US Supreme Court failed to stay his execution. Utah's allowance of execution by firing squad has added to general criticism of the death penalty, which is used in 34 states. Earlier this month Crystal Whalen, a student attorney at the Regional Public Defender's Office for Capital Cases in Lubbock, Texas, wrote in favor of moving away from the death penalty, arguing that death as punishment is unconstitutional [JURIST commentary] under the Eighth Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder]. In March 2011, Illinois voted to abolish the death penalty entirely [JURIST report]. Two years before that, New Mexico repealed [JURIST report] the use of the death penalty in the state, replacing it with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. New Mexico was the third state to abolish the death penalty since 1976, joining New Jersey and New York [JURIST reports], each of which abolished the death penalty in 2007.

[JURIST] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) [official website; press release] voted Thursday to issue the first US license for a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. In a 4-1 vote the NRC approved an application by Southern Company [corporate website] for an issuance of two Combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COL), the first such licenses ever approved for a US nuclear plant. The lone dissenting vote was cast by NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko [official profile], who cited environmental concerns similar to those surrounding the fallout from the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster [IAEA backgrounder]. Each COL authorizes a new reactor unit at the Waynesboro, GA, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant [corporate website], which began commercial operation of its two existing reactors in the late 1980s. Following the NRC vote the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) [official website] unanimously approved the costs projected by Southern subsidiary Georgia Power [corporate website; press release], whose construction costs for the new Vogtle units are monitored by the PSC via monthly filings and semiannual construction monitoring reports. No nuclear power plants have been licensed in the US [Reuters report] since the partial meltdown of the reactor core of the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979. Georgia Power hopes to have Vogtle Units 3 and 4 running by 2016 and 2017 respectively.

International reception to nuclear energy has fallen sharply since the the Fukushima disaster. The incident is now considered one of the biggest man-made environmental disasters of all time and the largest nuclear accident since Chernobyl in 1986. In September Laura Frano, a certified legal intern at the University of Pittsburgh Environmental Law Clinic, wrote about the growing popularity of natural gas [JURIST commentary] and other energy sources in the wake of environmental catastrophes like Fukushima and the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill [JURIST news archive]. In July the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] dismissed a lawsuit to force nuclear waste storage [JURIST report] at Yucca Mountain. In May the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] upheld the NRC decision to renew the license of the oldest US nuclear plant [JURIST report]. Nevertheless the Fukushima incident has sparked ongoing concern over nuclear policies and their affect on the environment, as Tamar Cerafici of the Cerafici Law Firm noted in April in her call for a coherent US energy policy [JURIST op-ed] that pays more than a begrudging acceptance of nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.