High Court upholds prohibition by school on prayer rituals

The High Court has dismissed a secondary school pupil’s challenge over the lawfulness of a policy at her London school to prohibit prayer rituals for all of its pupils.

In TBHMLFU v School [2024] EWHC 843, Mr Justice Linden concluded that all bar one of the grounds of challenge must fail.

He found that the disadvantage to Muslim pupils at the school caused by the prayer ritual policy was “outweighed by the aims which it seeks to promote in the interests of the school community as a whole, including Muslim pupils”.

The defendant is a secular secondary free school for girls and boys located in Wembley, in the London Borough of Brent.

The council acted as an Interested Party and remained neutral to the dispute throughout the proceedings.

The principal challenge in the claim was to the decision of the governing body of the school to prohibit its pupils from performing prayer rituals on its premises, “the prayer ritual policy” or “PRP”.

The PRP was challenged by TTT, a pupil who alleged that it was contrary to her right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and was “indirect religious discrimination” contrary to the Equality Act 2010.

The claimant wished to pray during the lunchtime break, however the school argued the performance of ritual prayer would “conflict with the school’s ethos” and its behavioural rules.

Linden J outlined TTT’s grounds as follows:

• Ground 1: The school’s refusal to permit her to pray during the school lunch break is 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 (“ECHR”).
• Ground 2: The PRP indirectly discriminates against Muslim pupils, contrary to sections 85(2)(d) and/or (f) of the Equality Act 2010, read with section 19.
• Ground 3: In introducing the PRP, the School failed to have “due regard” to the need to eliminate discrimination, to 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 school submitted that the claimant chose a secular school which she knew to have a strict behavioural regime, and that she is free to transfer to a school which would permit her to pray if she wishes to do so.

Fourthly, the claimant was also subject to a two-day fixed term exclusion on 23 March 2023 and a five day fixed term exclusion on 28 April 2023.

TTT contended that the fixed term exclusions were “procedurally unfair” in that she was not given an opportunity to respond to what was alleged against her before the decisions were made by the Headteacher (“Grounds 4(a) and (b)”).

Linden J rejected all grounds of challenge, aside from Ground 4(b). On Ground 1, he found that the PRP did not ”interfere” with the claimant’s freedom to manifest her religious beliefs under Article 9, and that the PRP was in any event justified under Article 9(2) ECHR given the ethos of the school and the practicalities of facilitating prayer for Muslim pupils at lunchtime.

On Ground 2, it was accepted that not permitting TTT to perform the Duhr prayer at the allotted time was a “detriment” for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, and that the PRP put Muslim pupils at a “particular disadvantage” given that they were more likely than non-Muslim pupils to wish to pray during the school day. The PRP therefore had an “indirectly discriminatory effect”.

However, the judge concluded it was “a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims” of the school and was therefore justified.

He said: “The disadvantage to Muslim pupils at the school caused by the PRP is in my view outweighed by the aims which it seeks to promote in the interests of the school community as a whole, including Muslim pupils.”

On Ground 3, the judge concluded that “in substance” the school had had due regard to the required equality issues in relation to the PRP and therefore had complied with the public sector equality duty.

Finally, considering Ground 4, the judge found that a fixed term suspension had been unlawful in that the school had failed to “properly investigate” the facts, including taking TTT’s version of events into consideration. Ground 4(b) therefore succeeded, while 4(a) was dismissed.

Jason Coppel KC and Tom Cross of 11KBW acted for the school at the hearing, instructed by Sinclairs Law.

Miriam Carrion Benitez of 36 Group represented the London Borough of Brent.

Lottie Winson