In the recent judgment in R (TTT) v Michaela Community Schools Trust, the main question was, can schools ban prayer rituals? In this case the court found in favour of the school’s decision to ban prayer rituals. This blog will look at the potential wide-reaching effects of the ruling.
The background story
Michaela Community School (the “School”) is a school in Wembley, often referred to as “the strictest school in Britain” and widely known for its academic success.
In 2023, a number of pupils started praying in the playground. These pupils began bringing in travel prayer mats, which were quickly confiscated by teachers as a prohibited item under the School’s rules. Following this, things at the School escalated rapidly with an influx of public criticism directed at both the School and its staff. There were also various hateful comments posted online, threats of violence and a bomb threat sent to the School.
The School then decided to impose a temporary ban on all prayer rituals, which was later made permanent. The ban applies to pupils of all faiths and attempts to maintain the strict disciplinary regime and “team” ethos at the School. This is in the School’s attempt to “aggressively” promote integration between all pupils of different cultures, faiths and ethnic backgrounds and minimise the social distinctions between them.
The case overview
A practising Muslim pupil brought a judicial review claim challenging the ban of prayer rituals and two fixed-term exclusions she was subject to.
The pupil challenged the ban on three grounds:
- That it was a breach of her right to freedom to manifest her religious beliefs which is protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the “Article 9 Right”). It was held that the prayer ban did not interfere with her Article 9 Right, with the Court accepting the School’s argument that when she enrolled it was clear she may be subject to restrictions on her ability to manifest her beliefs and she was free to move schools or chose another school. The Court also found the prayer ban was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, regarding the School’s ethos.
- That it indirectly discriminates against Muslim pupils, in breach of the Equality Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”). Similarly, the Court also ruled that “the disadvantage to Muslim pupils at the School caused by the ban is outweighed by the aims which it seeks to promote in the interests of the school community as a whole, including Muslim pupils.”
- That the School had failed to have “due regard” to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, contrary to the public sector equality duty (“PSED”) under section 149 of the 2010 Act. The Court did not uphold this ground as the governing body had considered relevant issues in substance and in the context of the school.
She also challenged the two fixed-term exclusions stating that these were procedurally unfair because she was not given the opportunity to respond to the allegations against her before the decisions to exclude her were made. It was held that one of the suspensions was procedurally unfair but the other was not, with one being based on a teacher’s evidence and the other based on evidence from other pupils.
How can Moore Barlow help?
Cases such as this one are very fact specific and the School in question is unusual in its strict ethos. It should not be inferred that all schools can freely restrict pupils’ rights to manifest their religious beliefs as this would give rise to the risk of unlawful discrimination. Schools are however allowed to impose policies, which could restrict the right to manifest a religious belief and put those with protected characteristics at a disadvantage but only when this is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The legal issues at stake are highly complex and it would be recommended to seek legal advice before taking such decisions.
Please contact any of the Independent schools lawyers to discuss how we can help you.
