The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) instructed attorneys defending an arrested road preacher that components of the Bible are “not acceptable in fashionable society”.
The astonishing declare was made in a doc despatched by the CPS to the Christian Authorized Centre, who defended John Dunn after his arrest over feedback he made about homosexuality.
When preaching in Swindon city centre on 1 November 2020, two ladies walked previous holding arms, to which Mr Dunn stated: “I hope you might be sisters.”
Once they knowledgeable him that they have been in a same-sex marriage, Mr Dunn quoted 1 Corinthians 6 and instructed them, “It says within the Bible that homosexuals is not going to inherit the dominion of God.”
The ladies have been offended and reported him to the police. Additionally they alleged that Mr Dunn shouted that they might “burn in hell”, regardless of his use of a voice field after surviving throat most cancers. He denies the allegation.
Mr Dunn voluntarily attended a police station for interview the place he was warned that he could be arrested if he tried to depart. He was then summonsed for an offence below part 5 of the Public Order Act, which covers threatening, abusive or disorderly behaviour or phrases.
The CPS alleged that Mr Dunn had dedicated hate speech that offended the ladies, and its attorneys argued that prosecution of Mr Dunn was “essential” and “proportionate”.
Within the doc submitted to Mr Dunn’s defence, the CPS said, “There are references within the bible that are merely not acceptable in fashionable society and which might be deemed offensive if said in public.”
Attorneys for Mr Dunn argued that the legislation should shield the expression of opinions “even when these cross the sensibilities of the vast majority of the inhabitants”.
Additionally they argued that “merely conveying Biblical fact” didn’t quantity to abuse.
A listening to was as a consequence of happen on 13 November which might have resulted in a legal file for Mr Dunn, however the CPS dropped the case towards him after the 2 complainants didn’t come ahead to present proof.
A CPS spokesperson stated: “On the day of the trial the complainants couldn’t be positioned to offer very important proof for the prosecution, which resulted in us providing no proof.”
It added, “It isn’t the perform of the CPS to resolve whether or not an individual is responsible of a legal offence, however to make truthful, impartial and goal assessments of the proof to place our case earlier than the courtroom.“
Mr Dunn stated he was “relieved and grateful” that the case towards him has been dropped. He stated that his intention was solely to declare God’s fact out of affection and compassion for the folks passing by and listening. He now plans to return to road preaching in Swindon.
“After I preach, I solely ever say what’s within the Bible,” he stated.
“Once they instructed me they have been in a same-sex marriage, I used to be involved for them. I needed to talk the results of their actions based mostly on what the Bible says.
“I wished to warn them, not out of condemnation, however out of affection. I wished to them to know that there’s forgiveness by way of the love of Jesus.
“9 instances out of ten after I preach or have interaction with folks on the streets, folks ask me to wish for them.”
Andrea Williams, chief govt of the Christian Authorized Centre, stated the strategy of the CPS to the case and the Bible normally was “deeply regarding”.
She stated, “The Bible and its teachings are the muse of our society and have supplied lots of the freedoms and protections that we nonetheless take pleasure in as we speak.
“It’s extraordinary that the prosecution, talking on behalf of the state, might say that the Bible incorporates abusive phrases which, when spoken in public, represent a legal offence.
“The view from the CPS was that the Bible is offensive and incorporates unlawful speech which shouldn’t be shared in public.
“‘Offence’ is a wholly subjective idea and is definitely manipulated to close down viewpoints that folks merely do not like.
“Any suggestion that there’s a proper to not be offended should be strongly resisted. In as we speak’s democracy, we’d like the liberty to debate, problem and disagree.”