A Muslim pupil at a North London faculty has misplaced her declare within the Excessive Courtroom during which she challenged the varsity’s determination to ban ritual prayers throughout faculty hours. The college is an avowedly secular secondary faculty, with 700 pupils who’re from a various vary of ethnic, non secular and cultural backgrounds. Half of the pupils are Muslim. The college is thought for its sturdy educational success which it attributes to a singularly distinctive strategy to the supply of its training. This features a ‘staff ethos’ which prioritises the pursuits of the varsity group as a collective over the person. This strategy is linked to a strong promotion of integration of all pupils in order that social distinctions between them is lowered. Within the implementation of the staff ethos and such integration, the varsity exerts a excessive stage of management over the conduct and behavior of its pupils, deploying a strict disciplinary strategy.
Muslims are obligated to hope 5 occasions a day and the pupil was in a position to observe most of those exterior of college hours. Nevertheless, one exception was the efficiency of the Duhr prayer which, in autumn and winter months, may solely happen inside a brief window throughout the faculty’s lunch break. The pupil claimed that she was entitled to ‘free time’ throughout the lunch break and that she may avail herself of this time with a view to observe the Duhr prayer.
Thus, the primary aspect of the pupil’s declare was a problem to the varsity’s determination to ban its pupils from performing prayer on its premises (the ‘prayer ritual coverage’, or ‘PRP’).
There have been 4 substantive grounds of the declare (the fourth, procedural floor won’t be mentioned right here).
The primary floor was that, in refusing to permit her to carry out these prayers, the varsity was in breach of her proper to manifest her non secular beliefs beneath Article 9 of the European Conference on Human Rights (as integrated within the Human Rights Act 1998).
Floor two was that the PRP not directly discriminates towards Muslim pupils, opposite to sections 85(2)(d) and/or (f) of the Equality Act 2010 (‘EA 2010’) together with part 19 EA 2010.
Floor three – that, in introducing the PRP, the College did not have ‘due regard’ to the necessity to get rid of discrimination, to advance equality of alternative and to foster good relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, opposite to the general public sector equality responsibility (‘PSED’) beneath part 149 EA 2010.
The college contended that there was no interference with the pupil’s freedom beneath Article 9 in that the PRP didn’t ‘intrude’ with that freedom. The pupil was not subjected to a ‘detriment’ beneath part 85(2)(f) EA 2010 in not with the ability to observe the Duhr prayer. It’s because the rules of Islam permit people to carry out the Qada prayer at a later time (exterior of college hours) which compensate or ‘make up’ for lacking the Duhr prayer on the allotted time. As well as, they argued that the pupil had chosen a faculty with a largely secular ethos and was in a position to switch to different colleges within the neighborhood which permitted prayers throughout faculty hours.
By way of the declare of oblique discrimination, the College argued that any interference with the pupil’s non secular freedom was justified, because the efficiency of prayers conflicts with its collectivist and secular ethos, and in addition that any lodging of prayers can be extremely problematic in logistical phrases.
Turning to the part 149 responsibility, the College argued that it did have ‘due regard’ to the required issues beneath the 2010 Act when the PRP was launched, and thus denied any breach of the PSED.
The Excessive Courtroom rejected floor one of many declare on the idea of two causes. First, that the PRP didn’t ‘intrude’ with the pupil’s Article 9 proper. She had been conscious of the varsity’s ethos earlier than choosing it; if she was not glad along with her present faculty, she has the choice to maneuver to an alternate faculty which allowed pupils to look at prayer rituals. As well as, if unable to hope on the allotted time, she was in a position to carry out Qada prayers at a later time. Second, the PRP was justified beneath Article 9(2) on the idea of the varsity ethos and the logistical difficulties of facilitating prayer at lunchtime.
Floor two was additionally rejected by the Courtroom. It recognised that not allowing efficiency of the Duhr prayers on the applicable time was a ‘detriment’ beneath the EA 2010, and that the PRP rendered Muslim pupils at a ‘explicit drawback’. As such, the PRP had an not directly discriminatory impact on such pupils. Nevertheless, by way of the query of justification, the Courtroom held that the PRP was ‘a proportionate technique of reaching the respectable goals’ of the varsity and thus justified, citing the explanations supplied beneath the Article 9 declare. Any drawback that Muslim pupils suffered, the Courtroom acknowledged, was outweighed by the varsity’s goal to foster the collective pursuits of the varsity group.
Lastly, in rejecting floor three, the Courtroom held that the varsity did have due regard to equality points in reference to the PRP and due to this fact had complied with the PSED.
This prolonged judgement has given rise to plenty of pertinent points which require additional evaluation. One subject is the style during which the Courtroom affirms the lawfulness of a secular strategy inside a authorized context which prioritises Christianity in colleges’ instructing of faith and in collective worship. This must be considered towards the backdrop of the various and multi-faith nature of British society – notably so within the case of this faculty’s demographic. One other is the Courtroom’s restrictive interpretation of Article 9 and the truth that it dominated that the prayer ban didn’t ‘intrude’ with the pupil’s freedom to manifest her non secular beliefs. This units the next commonplace that future claimants must fulfill to ascertain a declare beneath Article 9 of their potential to show ‘interference’, and that this interference just isn’t justified. This ruling could encourage different colleges to introduce prayer bans which the courts may additionally contemplate lawful.
Because the Muslim Council of Britain famous, the varsity’s coverage ‘units a harmful precedent for non secular freedom on this nation because it does for the way forward for inclusivity in our instructional establishments’.