England Dropped Its Case in 1988; Why Isn’t Japan?

Very similar legal and evidentiary weaknesses: In England, a surprisingly relevant legal precedent exists to the dissolution order case in Japan

Part 1 of a series written based on a report by Julian Gray, former editor of the FFWPU publication Today’s World, currently translator for the Family Federation‘s new international administrative HQ, known as Cheon Mu Won, located in Gapyeong, South Korea.

See part 2: Scholar Warns Against Revival of Stereotypes

See part 3: Sociologist Debunks “Cult” Stereotypes in Court

Text: Knut Holdhus / Julian Gray

In 2024, the Japanese government moved to revoke the legal corporate status of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (formerly known as the Unification Church). The case has sparked national and international debate. But a surprisingly relevant legal precedent exists – one that might influence the outcome in Japan: the 1984-1988 UK charitable status case against the Unification Church. A close review of the English case may offer insights into the legal and evidentiary weaknesses now playing out in Japan.

Parallels and Lessons from the English Case

In 1984, then-Attorney-General [England’s chief law officer and senior legal adviser to the government] Michael Havers (1923-1992) instigated proceedings to challenge the charitable (not-for-profit) status of the Unification Church in England. The case was significant and complex, involving claims about the church‘s religious status and moral standing. But after several years of investigation and preparation, the British government suddenly dropped the case in 1988. Why?

Attorney-General Patrick Mayhew (1929-2016) addressed the House of Commons on 3^rd February 1988, explaining the government’s decision to discontinue the proceedings. His reasoning – and the process behind it – could bear directly on how Japan’s courts view the reliability of government evidence in their current case.

The Attorney-General’s Statement in Parliament

Mayhew’s remarks were revealing. First, he affirmed that under English law, there is a strong presumption that a trust for the advancement of religion is charitable, regardless of how controversial the religion may be:

“Whatever view may be taken of its tenets, the Unification Church must, as a matter of law, be regarded as a religion. In English law there is a strong presumption that any trust for the advancement of any religion, without distinction, is charitable unless the contrary is proved by evidence admissible in court proceedings. Teachings that are in their very essence contrary to morality would be an example. It is for any challenger to bring forward such evidence: the burden is on him.”

He further admitted that despite exhaustive efforts – including soliciting testimonies from former members and others involved in the church – the government failed to meet this burden of proof:

“The evidence available to my predecessor in 1984 properly led him, with the advice of leading counsel, to conclude that there were sufficient prospects of an appeal succeeding. That evidence included testimony of witnesses called for the successful defendants in a libel action against Associated Newspapers Group Ltd. tried in 1981. In addition, there were statements by former members of the Unification Church that had been offered when it came generally known that charity proceedings in the High Court were under consideration.

Since the proceedings were begun, the Treasury Solicitor [See editor’s note below] has gone to immense lengths in seeking out additional evidence from those who have been associated with the Unification Church. Some further potential witnesses have approached him on their own initiative. Further statements have been taken from other persons, who had been closely involved in comparatively recent activities of the Unification Church in this country, and who had wanted to assist in the challenge to charitable status of the trusts.

The most careful analysis has now been made of the totality of the evidence available to me, set against the legal presumption to which I have referred. Some of it, when tested in the light of all the material now available, has proved to be insufficiently reliable.

The remainder, when seen in the overall context, is shown to be of insufficient weight to rebut the legal presumption. I have now been advised by leading counsel that it is most unlikely that, if the appeal proceeded to trial, I should be able to dislodge that strong legal presumption of charitable status. After the most careful consideration, I agree with that advice.

The trial is due to start on 12 April [1988]. It would last an estimated three to six months and occasion great expense. In these circumstances, I have decided to seek the court’s leave to discontinue these proceedings, and the Treasury Solicitor [See editor’s note below] has this morning so informed the defendants.”

Attorney-General Mayhew emphasized that even after years of investigation and legal consultation, the case had little hope of success. Continuing would have cost the government a great deal in time, resources, and public credibility.

The Attorney-General here explains that because the evidence the government had gathered was shown to be unreliable or weak, he was advised to discontinue the case. He does not clarify in detail which particular evidence influenced him the most. This report examines some of the evidence, brought by the defense, that probably influenced the Attorney-General.

Continued in part 2.

See part 2: Scholar Warns Against Revival of Stereotypes

See part 3: Sociologist Debunks “Cult” Stereotypes in Court

Featured image above: Facsimile from Unification News March 1988, page 1, published in New York, USA. 

[Editor’s note: The Treasury Solicitor was the head of the Treasury Solicitor’s Department (TSol), a non-ministerial government department that provided legal services to the majority of central government departments in England and Wales. In April 2015 it became the Government Legal Department (GLD).]

Related to England dropped case: Japan Following the Way of China

Also related to England dropped case: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook

And also related to England dropped case: “Lawyers Lying and Shaming Japan” for 50 Years

More, related to England dropped case: Lawfare: State Uses Legal System in War on Faith

Also related to England dropped case: Media/Legal Expert: Communism Behind Persecution

And more, related to England dropped case: Militant Lawyers Dictate Government Policy

And more, related to England dropped case: Media Helping Terrorist Reach His Goal

Related to England dropped case: Kishida Administration Giving in to Terrorism

And more, related to England dropped case: 12 Religious Freedom NGOs Denouncing Japan

Yet more, related to England dropped case: Japanese Communists’ Final War

Still more, related to England dropped case: Political and Social Activism behind Oppression

And yet more, related to England dropped case: Opposition Inciting Regime to Excessive Steps

And still more, related to England dropped case: Journalist Reveals Ugly Leftwing Conspiracy

And even more, related to England dropped case: Gingrich: Kishida Joining Communist Campaign

Yet more, related to England dropped case: The 3 Enemies of Religious Liberty

Still more, related to England dropped case: Lawyer Exposes Dirty Leftwing Plot

And yet more, related to England dropped case: Inhuman Government-Supported Mass Deprogramming

And still more, related to England dropped case: Bias: No Right to Respond for Religious Minority

And even more, related to England dropped case: Collusion to Rob Minority of Its Rights

Yet more, related to England dropped case: State and Media Creating “Today’s Non-Citizens”

Still more, related to England dropped case: Japan Criticized for Glaring Rights Violations

And yet more, related to England dropped case: Two European Scholars Warning Japan