RSS Feed

The Tithe is high, and I’m rolling on

The Court of Protection’s decision in relation to a man allegedly suffering from a delusion that he was the Messiah * and his desire to give 10% of his income to the Church by way of tithe.

 * (I say allegedly, because part of the case involved the man trying to prove to the Court that he was not delusional but right. No spoilers, but I think that you probably would have read in the papers by now “Judge rules that man is New Jesus” if that’s the way this had ended up)

 Re P (Capacity to Tithe Inheritance) 2014


 The man, MS, had received an inheritance, just under £70,000 and wished to give 10% of it to the Church of Latter Day Saints   (you may, or may not, know that the centrepiece of their faith is that the Bible is not just an Old Testament and New Testament, but a third volume, the Book of Mormon, and that Jesus came to America after the crucifixion and resurrection)


His family were, given his expressed belief that he was the Messiah, unsure that it was a properly informed decision to give away nearly £7,000 to the Church.


The Local Authority, given MS’s mental health, were acting as his deputy in relation to financial affairs, and they made an application to the Court of Protection for a declaration as to what they should do.


MS in turn sought a declaration that he had capacity to determine his own financial affairs.


11. Mr S has been involved with mental health services for many years. His past diagnoses include bipolar affective disorder, schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. The prescribed medication has included Olanzapine, Lithium and Clozaril. He receives support from his local community mental health team (CMHT) and is the subject of a community treatment order under section 17A of the Mental Health Act 1983.

12In late January or early February 2005, he gave a tithe of his surplus property and capital to his church, amounting to some £1600-1700. He says that he was ‘well’ at the time. It ‘was only on around 9 June that year that he stopped taking his prescribed medication, following which he was ‘locked up’ some 13 days later’.

13In around June 2005, MS was admitted to hospital after discontinuing prescribed medication and then detained under the 1983 Act. His reasons for stopping medication seemed to be ‘associated with religious texts’ (Special Visitor Dr T’s Report, para. 19 — referred to from now on as the ‘SV Report’). He was preoccupied with religious beliefs. He believed that he had special gifts which made him ‘as gifted as God’ (SV Report, para. 21).

14Mr S again stopped taking medication in October 2012. It is reported that he had an altercation with a fellow resident whom he thought was ‘the devil and needed to be vanquished from his house’ (SV Report, para. 25). On admission to hospital, he was expressing delusional beliefs about being a Messiah … He spoke at length that he considered that the only people more powerful than him were God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost’ (SV Report, para. 26).




15According to the original medical certificate prepared by a psychiatrist Dr DS in April 2006, Ms S had suffered from a schizoaffective disorder since around 1991, as a result of which he lacked the capacity to manage his own property and affairs:

‘Mr S has always lived with his mother who has been his main carer. His beliefs include that he is one position below the Holy Trinity and so has special powers to change the world. Although he has never acted upon this belief, he has given considerable amounts of money to his church disregarding his own needs. He has periods when he feels he must starve himself’.

16 Despite treatment, there had been little change in his overall condition during the previous ten years. His ‘financial affairs need to be protected as he may use them in a manner which is not in his best interest’.




As a result of the inheritance, MS no longer received state benefits, his care needs and other expenses would be met from his capital until that runs out, when he would go back on benefits. If he were to give the tithe donation, the capital would run out 56 weeks earlier than if he were not to.



MS presented a document to the Court, this being an extract


42  ‘A word now on my very far from pauline performances when my case was heard (to allude to the Apostle Paul, and his performance each time his case was heard. Key to Paul’s success when his case was heard (though, if I’m not mistaken, he perished after his case was heard, a second time, before Nero) was his enjoying the gift of the Holy Ghost, which my church will not confer on me because of a doctrinal difference – more precisely, a disagreement over the interpretation of two passages of important doctrine. Enjoying the gift of the Holy Ghost was a central reason for the brilliance of Paul’s defense when his case was heard: in the Book of Mormon it states that those who have received the gift of the Holy Ghost (and who keep, or obey, the commandments) can speak with the tongue of angels. Now, as is stated in the reports, I claim to be a prophet, and the first outside the Godhead … in other words, I claim that only the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are greater beings than I am. Parenthetically, I have never claimed to wield as much as, or almost as much power as, they — this is manifestly not so. I do however believe, by revelation and inference, that if I prove faithful, I will after Judgement Day wield as much, or almost as much power as they presently do … In making this claim, I have a Mount Everest of a credibility problem. Where, then, are all your Nobel Prizes? You might ask ….

To defend, once more, my claim to be the first outside the Godhead, Joan of Arc had no evidence that she was, as she claimed, sent by Heaven to save France, and drive the English into the sea — she was a sixteen year old girl! She had no evidence that she had seen the archangel Michael, and St Catherine and St Margaret. All she had was her word. As it was with Joan, so it is with me.’







The consultant considered that MS’s views about the tithe and his desire to give the tithe flowed from his religious delusions and mania.


MS argued otherwise


46 This, says MS, shows a lack of insight into his faith. What his consultant describes as holding beliefs with a delusional intensity is simply ‘part of the zeal that is enjoined upon all Christians … And how does my wish to offer this tithe “stem directly” from my delusions?’

‘Giving a ten percent tithe is an Old and New Testament principle that is practised in my church … We are commanded to do it! Yes, I am not a member of my church — in this world — nevertheless, I believe it is busybodyism of a gross and outrageous sort … to deny me the sacred privilege of giving to my church as I see fit, and in accordance with my church’s understanding of tithing ….’



Although the practice of titheing is relatively unusual, even amongst Christians, it is certainly something that is done by people of faith (even those who don’t claim that only God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are more holy than them)


The capacity test for the giving of a gift is set out in a case called Beaney



70. The degree or extent of understanding required in respect of any instrument is relative to the particular transaction which it is to effect. In the case of a will the degree required is always high. In the case of a contract, a deed made for consideration or a gift inter vivos, whether by deed or otherwise, the degree required varies with the circumstances of the transaction. Thus, at one extreme, if the subject-matter and value of a gift are trivial in relation to the donor’s other assets a low degree of understanding will suffice. But, at the other, if its effect is to dispose of the donor’s only asset of value and thus for practical purposes to pre-empt the devolution of his estate under his will or on his intestacy, then the degree of understanding required is as high as that required for a will, and the donor must understand the claims of all potential donees and the extent of the property to be disposed of.

Martin Nourse QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Re Beaney [1978] 2 All ER 595 at 600


71 (Consistent with many common law cases, it can be seen that the court in Re Beaney used the word ‘understand’ to include, not merely the ability to comprehend relevant information, but also the ability to use and weigh it, i.e. in the common, everyday, sense that a person either does or does not understand what they are doing, the significance of their act.)




There ended up being a division between the medical professionals involved in the case, on an issue which went to the nub of it.


Was MS’s desire to tithe one that flowed directly out of his religious delusion that he was the Messiah, or were they part of his general religious beliefs and uninfluenced by the delusional aspects?


If the latter, then he was showing that he understood titheing, understood that he was disposing of some of his capital, understood that once it was gone it was gone, that it would lead him to run out of money sooner. In short, he had capacity.


If the former, and he was titheing because of a delusional belief   * then he did not have capacity


(* I hesitate here, because there will be a mixture of religious people and atheists reading this. I know exactly what the atheists are thinking at this point, but the Court does have to respect a person’s right to a religious viewpoint and to express their faith)



84According to medical opinion, MS has suffered from a schizo-affective disorder since approximately 1991, as a result of which he lacks capacity in some areas of his life, including capacity to tithe.

85 It is common-ground that he has strong and sincere religious beliefs and values and that what he sees as religious zeal others interpret as beliefs held with delusional intensity.

86 The beliefs and actions interpreted by others as evidence of mental illness include his belief that a fellow resident was the devil and his belief that the only people more powerful than him were God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

87 I accept that sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish between a religious delusion and a particular religious belief or practice. There is a risk of pathologizing religious beliefs when listening to content alone. It is important to look at the degree of conviction, the pervasiveness of beliefs, the context of the individual’s spiritual history and deviations from conventional religious beliefs and practices when determining whether a religious belief is authentic or delusional.

88 As a judge I must decide the case on evidence. As MS pointed out himself, he has a problem establishing on evidence that he is a prophet and the first outside the Godhead. The way he put it was that he has a ‘Mount Everest of a credibility problem’.

89 The balance of the evidence before me is that he has an ‘impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain’ and that therefore is my finding.



[Spoiler over. The Judge does actually make a finding that on the balance of probabilities, MS is not the Messiah, it is just by inference rather than explicit]


Although on the evidence I have accepted that his belief that he is a prophet is a delusional belief that does not mean that all of his religious beliefs are delusional or compromised by the presence of mental illness.


[That’s pretty explicit though]


So, there is an impairment of the functioning of the mind or brain, meeting the first part of the test for someone lacking capacity. The second test is whether because of that, the person cannot understand or weigh the relevant information.   [Let’s not forget that the starting point under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that a person DOES have capacity to make decisions]


91 Rebutting the presumption that he has capacity to tithe requires demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that because of this impairment or disturbance he cannot understand or weigh the information relevant to his decision to tithe.

92 What is the flaw in the decision-making process attributable to this impairment or disturbance of the mind or brain? What is the relevant information that he cannot understand or weigh because of this impairment or disturbance of the mind or brain?

93 On the one hand, Dr T says that Mr S understands the process of tithing and the implications for his own finances if he gives away the £6,900. His desire to make this gift to his church ‘is part of his religious beliefs but not in my opinion part of his delusional belief system … I could find no evidence that his wish to do this was part of any “revelation”, command or direct instruction from God.’

94On the other hand, Dr M’s opinion is that MS’s ‘beliefs about the tithe are an extension of his delusions and stem directly from them.’

95 I prefer Dr T’s view on this issue.



Looking at this in more detail



107 Many of Mr S’s religious beliefs are conventional religious beliefs, for example his belief that Jesus was the Son of God and that the Bible is a holy book. Other beliefs have a long tradition and are supported by scripture.

108 In what way therefore does his belief that it is necessary or appropriate to give a tithe stem directly from his delusion that he is a prophet or constitute an extension of it?

109 Belief A (I am a prophet) does not cause Belief B (it is a religious duty to give a tithe), nor is the second belief an extension of the first. Belief B is, however, a logical consequence of Belief C, that what is written in the Bible, including the injunction to tithe, represents God’s word.

110 Furthermore, the belief that the Bible is the word of God is shared by millions of people and does not stem from a belief in prophethood.

111 The fact that relatively few people now tithe is neither here nor there. Nor does it matter whether a person’s belief in tithing is a core belief required of members of a particular religion or a deviation and a matter of individual conscience.

112 It is not sufficient that other people think his proposed tithe is unwise, a misinterpretation of a religious text or is misguided by reference to their own secular beliefs and values.

113 It is relevant that his belief is a matter of faith.

114 In my opinion, on the balance of the evidence Dr T is correct when he says it cannot be demonstrated that Mr S’s desire to give this money to the Mormon Church is part of his delusional belief system.



122. The issue is finely balanced. In my view the presumption of capacity has not been displaced and the ‘invisible weight of the presumption’ tilts the scales in his favour



Interestingly, the Judge goes on to say that even if he had found that MS lacked capacity, he would still have said that allowing him to tithe would have been in his best interests.


Those portions of the judgment, although they are not part of the decision itself, touch on very important issues of autonomy and respect.


123  I should add that even if I had found that Mr S fell just the other side of the capacity line I would have authorised the tithe on his behalf.

124 Mr S tells me that he prizes his independence and autonomy and wishes to enjoy it more fully. This is important.

125 The law has always sought to show due respect for liberty of conscience and religious belief and the European Convention on Human Rights reinforces this. Even if a person lacks capacity in law to make a religious gift, there remains the need to show respect for genuinely held beliefs and values. Good reasons are required to interfere in matters of conscience and spiritual belief. A person’s religion is no less real to them because some of their beliefs may be coloured by illness and their conscience is no less offended when they are not permitted to practise their religion. In MS’s case, both his conventional and unconventional religious beliefs are well-established and unlikely to change in time. This is not a situation where ambiguous beliefs are being reinforced or acted on precipitously, or it is likely that he will regret his tithe in the foreseeable future. His religion is now part of his life and is embedded in his existence. What he wishes is now his will. Even if his choice is founded on a belief that facts exist which do not, it is now his authentic voice and a true expression of his mind and the world within which he moves; and, like everyone, he needs to find peace.

126 The insights of writers such as Sims (the former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists), Clark, Kroll and Agosin are also very relevant. The content of a delusion often has meaning for the individual and may be an adaptive response, combating purposelessness and hopelessness. Clark has noted that for patients with psychotic disorders, and with schizophrenia in particular, religious beliefs can be a source of meaning, hope, strength, and recovery (See SM Clark and DA Harrison, How to care for patients who have delusions with religious content, Current Psychiatry, Vol. 11, No. 1, 47 at 48, and the authorities cited therein). Many people who experience mental illness identify themselves as religious and use religious activities or beliefs to cope, so that one must take great care before deciding that it is in their best interests to interfere with this expression of where they are in their lives.

127 The size of the gift is significant but one must keep it in proportion, and the proportion is that he retains 90%.

128 The fact that MS wishes to make his tithe to the Church of the Latter Day Saints rather than, say, the Church of England is irrelevant. It is not my function to interfere with people’s religious or political preferences and choices but where possible to give expression to their wishes and beliefs.



The Court ruled that MS had litigation capacity to conduct his own case in THESE proceedings. They did not, however, rule that he should resume control of all of his financial affairs (although the suggestion was that he should get some legal advice about this aspect and preparing a Lasting Power of Attorney)

About suesspiciousminds

Law geek, local authority care hack, fascinated by words and quirky information; deeply committed to cheesecake and beer.

12 responses

  1. Ashamedtobebritish

    This made me very uncomfortable for a couple of reasons:

    Was the concern about MS’ capacity or about whether the tax payer would be picking up the bill for his care, sooner than needs be (there was plenty of enphasis on this)
    Did the judge KNOW he wasn’t the messiah? The original faced the same problem and ended up being hung from a cross – none of us truly know the truth behind that one either
    We are free to be whoever we want to be, he believed he was the messiah, he wasn’t hurting anyone and it was his money. The judge is an idiot

    • Was it more likely than not that he was the Messiah, or was it more likely than not that this was a schizophrenic delusion given his history? And Sandy, the Judge agreed with you that it was his money and he was able to spend it how he liked, so not quite sure why you think the Judge was an idiot.

      • Ashamed to be British

        Likely, on the balance of probabilities, beyond all reasonable doubt yes, but proven, NO!
        Sorry I got on my soap box and read it as the judge saying a power of attorney had to decide (I was wrong on that) BUT, I am sick of them deciding who ppl are, what they might do, whether they could lose the ability to walk on water in the middle of the Red Sea and drown or not -_-
        We don’t arrest people who are likely to commit murder or any other kind of crime, they actually have to be proven to have done it first, judges would do well to use a little Solomon wisdom (Plain common sense would do in some cases)
        Pfft … like I say as long as he’s not hurting anyone or himself, leave him alone

      • See also (have found this quite by chance) the US Courts take on this sort of issue

        Collins v Henman 1987 – in which the claimant stated that he was not Raymond Collins but the Prophet Mohammed, the Court expressly did not get into a decision about whether he was or not, but said that even if he was, he still had to follow the correct process for an appeal

        Click to access Collins.pdf

        and another case is cited in there in which a prisoner claimed to be the new Messiah, and the Court again did not rule on whether he was or not, but did accept that he was entitled to write a letter to the Pope to share this good news… Peek v Cicconne 1968

    • Ashamed to be British

      Hmm interesting … obviously everyone has to be treated the same in a court of law, even if they are Jesus, Buddah or God himself (wouldn’t want to be in the judges shoes if he caught their wrath though!)
      It’s just a shame that everyone is not treated equally in reality. It certainly comes to something when a paedophile is freed to go home to his wife and CHILDREN because they need him at home, yet a woman who runs to her escapee children is jailed. Yes she broke a court order, but he broke the law, no sense at all, none, which makes the majority of judges idiots

      • Have been musing about this – as you may know, Alan Turing (in the infancy of computer science) devised a test to determine in the future whether a computer was genuinely intelligent – the Turing test.

        I now present the Suesspicious test, for establishing whether a person claiming to be the Messiah genuinely is. We know of five feats performed by the previous Messiah, and it reasonable to expect that the new one would be able to at least replicate these.

        1. Raising the dead (Lazarus)
        2. Turning water into wine
        3. Walking on water
        4. Resurrection
        5. Feeding the five thousand with meagre provisions

        It seems to me that 3 and 4 are risky, in case the subject turns out not to be the Messiah. 1 involves no real risk (the dead body will simply remain dead if the attempt fails), however success might cause difficulty with probate and the emotional processes of the bereaved.

        Five seems logistically expensive – have to get 5,000 people to pitch up with possibility of no catering. Although Channel Four might be interested in a “Come Dine with the Messiah” special…

        Therefore, subject claiming to be the Messiah will sit at a table, with bare arms, and have a clear pitcher of water in front of him. He/she is to be given up to two hours to turn the liquid into wine, the process to be independently observed. The liquid will be tested by scientists afterwards. If wine – subject is Messiah. If water – subject is not the Messiah

    • Ashamed to be British

      You make perfect sense. There is a flaw though.

      What id MS was David Blaine or someone with similar abilities to trick the mind? The walking on water bit has been heavily televised so that’s already been proven, if he can turn a £10 note into a £50 then a few fish and a loaf of bread shouldn’t be too much of a problem.

      I know I’m running into the extreme, but my point is valid, yours was hilarious, thanks for the laffs 😀

      • Hence the bare arms, and scientific testing. You are right about walking on water – I’ve seen magicians do this, notably Dynamo on the Thames – it needs quite a bit of set up work (almost all Magic works because the observers don’t think that anyone could possibly go to ALL THAT trouble for a trick). I don’t know of any magician who has ever turned water into wine, which suggests that it is pretty hard to pull off (it’s probably the most famous act of wonder performed, so I’m sure they’ve thought about it)

  2. Pingback: The Tithe is high, and I’m rolling on | L...

  3. Can we get the local authority to intervene at number 10 and ask the court of protection for a determination on the capacity of David Cameron, the man running the country is giving away all the nations assets (that we have left) to neoliberals, and thinks he is continuing the work of Jesus.

    He maybe your Messiah Suesspiciousminds.

    He thinks he can preform a miracle and feed thousands with no benefits or living wages. and throw in a bonus of shelter by the miraculous appearance of thousands of 1 bedroom properties.

    Him and his friends can certainly turn the tax payers money into wine at the bars in the palace of westminster.

    He has the appearance of walking on water, him and his followers have not sunk yet.

    He raised his followers from the dead after 13 years and I think he thinks he can raise more than his followers, so that the families of the atos victims and benefit sanctions believe in him.

    He even has disciples who follow him and spread his beliefs called ministers.

    He will be crucified in 2015 (hopefully) and some of his disciples will desert him and one at least will deny him and later he will be resurrected and become a lord.

    The only issue is he has not dealt with the money lenders (bankers)….

    • Ashamed to be British

      Fabulous! Well said … although you did forget ‘suffer little children, come unto me’ – as he continues to condone the stealing of children from across the world, even the Messiah gets it wrong at times, this one left his own daughter in a water hole.

%d bloggers like this: