A Muslim pupil at a North London college has misplaced her declare within the Excessive Court docket wherein she challenged the varsity’s resolution to ban ritual prayers throughout college hours. The college is an avowedly secular secondary college, with 700 pupils who’re from a various vary of ethnic, spiritual and cultural backgrounds. Half of the pupils are Muslim. The college is thought for its robust educational success which it attributes to a singularly distinctive strategy to the supply of its training. This features a ‘group ethos’ which prioritises the pursuits of the varsity neighborhood 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 group 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 capable of observe most of those exterior of college hours. Nonetheless, one exception was the efficiency of the Duhr prayer which, in autumn and winter months, may solely happen inside a brief window in the course of the college’s lunch break. The pupil claimed that she was entitled to ‘free time’ in the course of the lunch break and that she may avail herself of this time with a view to observe the Duhr prayer.
Thus, the primary component of the pupil’s declare was a problem to the varsity’s resolution 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 is not going to 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 spiritual beliefs below 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 in opposition to 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 didn’t have ‘due regard’ to the necessity to remove 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’) below part 149 EA 2010.
The college contended that there was no interference with the pupil’s freedom below Article 9 in that the PRP didn’t ‘intrude’ with that freedom. The pupil was not subjected to a ‘detriment’ below part 85(2)(f) EA 2010 in not having the ability to observe the Duhr prayer. It’s because the ideas of Islam enable 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 college with a largely secular ethos and was capable of switch to different colleges within the neighborhood which permitted prayers throughout college hours.
When it comes to the declare of oblique discrimination, the College argued that any interference with the pupil’s spiritual freedom was justified, because the efficiency of prayers conflicts with its collectivist and secular ethos, and likewise 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 below the 2010 Act when the PRP was launched, and thus denied any breach of the PSED.
The Excessive Court docket 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 deciding on it; if she was not happy together with her present college, she has the choice to maneuver to another college which allowed pupils to watch prayer rituals. As well as, if unable to hope on the allotted time, she was capable of carry out Qada prayers at a later time. Second, the PRP was justified below 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 Court docket. It recognised that not allowing efficiency of the Duhr prayers on the acceptable time was a ‘detriment’ below the EA 2010, and that the PRP rendered Muslim pupils at a ‘specific drawback’. As such, the PRP had an not directly discriminatory impact on such pupils. Nonetheless, when it comes to the query of justification, the Court docket held that the PRP was ‘a proportionate technique of reaching the legit goals’ of the varsity and thus justified, citing the explanations supplied below the Article 9 declare. Any drawback that Muslim pupils suffered, the Court docket acknowledged, was outweighed by the varsity’s goal to foster the collective pursuits of the varsity neighborhood.
Lastly, in rejecting floor three, the Court docket 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 numerous pertinent points which require additional evaluation. One situation is the style wherein the Court docket affirms the lawfulness of a secular strategy inside a authorized context which prioritises Christianity in colleges’ instructing of faith and in collective worship. This ought to be considered in opposition to the backdrop of the various and multi-faith nature of British society – significantly so within the case of this college’s demographic. One other is the Court docket’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 spiritual beliefs. This units the next normal that future claimants must fulfill to ascertain a declare below Article 9 of their capacity to exhibit ‘interference’, and that this interference just isn’t justified. This ruling might encourage different colleges to introduce prayer bans which the courts may additionally think about lawful.
Because the Muslim Council of Britain famous, the varsity’s coverage ‘units a harmful precedent for spiritual freedom on this nation because it does for the way forward for inclusivity in our academic establishments’.