How could half of the students be Muslims, yet prayers is not allowed, and still parents are sending their children to the school?
Ruling: Justice Linden:
Background:
On her break, a Year-9 Muslim pupil was performing her Thuhr prayers in the school playground, when she was stopped in the midst of it, where subsequently the school issued a ban of all forms of prayers, or religious rituals, on school grounds.
The School is a secular secondary school for girls and boys located in Wembley, in the London Borough of Brent. It has around 700 pupils who are from diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds although half, including the Claimant, are Muslims.
School policy:
The governing body of the School prohibit its pupils from performing prayer rituals on its premises under the (โthe prayer ritual policyโ, or โPRPโ).
Plaintiff argues:
The prayers ban policy is a breach of her right to religious freedom.
186.
In summary, Ms Hannett emphasised that the burden of proof was on the School to establish its case under Article 9(2) on the evidence. She accepted that avoiding detriment to education and social cohesion through opting out of socialising during the lunchbreak, and avoiding logistical disruption, were both legitimate aims which were rationally connected to the PRP. But she submitted that:
School argues:
183.
Mr Coppel submitted that the continuation of the PRP had the following aims:
Case facts, relevant case laws, arguments, and reasoning for the decision.
Ruling: Justice Linden:
'... I therefore accept that the aims of the PRP relied on by the School to justify not permitting and facilitating prayer rituals indoors are legitimate aims to which the PRP is rationally connected (Bank Mellatt questions 1 and 2). These were essentially the reasons why there had been no prayer room hitherto.
... balancing the adverse effects of the PRP on the rights of Muslim pupils at the School with the aims of the PRP and the extent to which it is likely to achieve those aims, I have concluded that the latter outweighs the former and that the PRP is proportionate.
... This is not a case of ex post facto rationalisation and, in any event, I have scrutinised the Schoolโs case carefully. Nor is it a case in which the Governing Body was labouring under significant factual misapprehensions'.
Background:
On her break, a Year-9 Muslim pupil was performing her Thuhr prayers in the school playground, when she was stopped in the midst of it, where subsequently the school issued a ban of all forms of prayers, or religious rituals, on school grounds.
The School is a secular secondary school for girls and boys located in Wembley, in the London Borough of Brent. It has around 700 pupils who are from diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds although half, including the Claimant, are Muslims.
School policy:
The governing body of the School prohibit its pupils from performing prayer rituals on its premises under the (โthe prayer ritual policyโ, or โPRPโ).
Plaintiff argues:
The prayers ban policy is a breach of her right to religious freedom.
186.
In summary, Ms Hannett emphasised that the burden of proof was on the School to establish its case under Article 9(2) on the evidence. She accepted that avoiding detriment to education and social cohesion through opting out of socialising during the lunchbreak, and avoiding logistical disruption, were both legitimate aims which were rationally connected to the PRP. But she submitted that:
i) Relaiance on ethos illegimate, and goes against The Schoolโs own equality objectives were โto promote cultural understanding and awareness of different religious beliefsโ.
ii) The PRP is not rationally connected to the aim of promoting compliance with
the Schoolโs behaviour policy.
iii) The concerns about a repetition of the abuse and threats directed at the School in March 2023 were only rationally connected to prayer outside in the school yard.
[ continues... with case laws ]School argues:
183.
Mr Coppel submitted that the continuation of the PRP had the following aims:
i) Preserving the ethos, policies and practices of the School.
ii) Promoting pupilsโ compliance with the Schoolโs behaviour policy.
iii) Protecting the School from threats and abuse.
iv) Avoiding the logistical disruption and detriments to other School activities which would be caused by accommodating prayer rituals within the School building.
v) Avoiding detriment to pupilsโ education and to social cohesion within the School which would occur if they were permitted to opt out of the important period of socialising during the lunch break. The guided socialisation which took place during the relevant 25 minutes was, Mr Coppel argued, also an educational activity and the effect of allowing prayer rituals during this time would be to take Muslim pupils away from this activity.
[ continues ... with case laws ]Case facts, relevant case laws, arguments, and reasoning for the decision.
