Freedom of religion In the UK case of Adath Yisroel Burial Society v HM Senior Coroner for Inner North London75 the Inner North London Coroner had a ‘cab rank’ policy for releasing bodies for burial: No death will be prioritised in any way over any other because of the religion of the deceased or family, either by the coroner’s officers or coroners. This policy was challenged on the basis that religious Jews and Muslims hold religious beliefs requiring speedy burials, usually within 24 hours after death. The policy was found to be overly inflexible, because it failed to allow for consideration of Jewish and Muslim beliefs in coronial decisions (affecting freedom of religion) and resulted in indirect religious discrimination against those groups. Justice Singh explained: The fundamental difficulty with the Defendant’s policy is that it does not strike a fair balance between the rights concerned at all. Rather, as a matter of Freedom of expression Ian Simms and Michael O’Brien were convicted of separate murders. They persistently protested their innocence. They ran out of options in the courts and decided to try and get a journalist to investigate, so they could tell their side of the story. However, the prison refused to let them speak to a journalist. Simms and O’Brien took the prison to court in Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Simms (A.P.) Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte O’Brien.78 They argued that the ability of the prison to refuse to allow journalists to visit and interview prisoners was in breach of their freedom of speech.79 54 rigid policy, it requires the Coroner and her officers to leave out of account altogether the requirements of Jewish and Muslim people in relation to early consideration of and early release of bodies of their loved ones.76 … This also underlines the point that what Article 9 requires is not that there should be any favouritism, whether in favour of religious belief in general or in favour of any particular religious faith, but that there should be a fair balance struck between the rights and interests of different people in society. The fundamental flaw in the present policy adopted by the Defendant is that it fails to strike any balance at all, let alone a fair balance.77 The court issued a declaration that the policy was unlawful; and a quashing order to set aside the policy. The coroner’s new policy flexibly incorporated religious considerations, alongside other considerations. The Court agreed with them, saying that journalists should be able to interview prisoners as a way of making sure there were no miscarriages of justice. The judge said that freedom of speech was necessary in the ‘exposure of errors’ of the criminal justice system. Lord Hoffman delivering the judgment, discussed the existing common law principle of legality, and noted that the Human Rights Act supplemented and strengthened this principle. He explained: Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 will not detract from this power. The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the