Teach Secondary Issue 13.4

A ‘prayer ban’ win – SOWHAT NOW? With the High Court finding in favour of Michaela Community School, after a pupil challenged its ban on praying in school, PhilipWood looks at the ruling’s potential implications for headteachers... T here have arguably been few legal tightrope walks quite as challenging or divisive as the recent High Court case involving London’s Michaela Community School. Centred on a ‘prayer ban’, the case threw up numerous questions regarding how far schools can go to restrict religious expression in the promotion of strict social and disciplinary values – while at the same time not quite providing the concrete answers that other headteachers might have hoped for. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Philip Wood is a Senior Associate at the law firm Browne Jacobson; for more information, visit brownejacobson.com or follow @brownejacobson Expression versus ethos The case involved a pupil, who is a practisingMuslim, and focused on the Duhr or Zuhr prayer, which should be undertaken when the sun is at its highest point. From late September until the end of March, this part of the day overlaps with the school’s allocated lunch break. Consequently, the pupil felt she should be able to perform prayer during this 25-minute ‘free’ period of time. No challenge was made concerning her inability to attend prayers at other times. The school, however, argued that this contravened its ‘disciplinary’ and ‘team’ values, which are both applied in a very strict manner compared to other schools. The school’s team ethos is reflected in a ‘family lunch’, where groups of six pupils lunch together with a teacher or visitor, and the practice of ‘guided socialisation’ within the school yard. Under the latter system, teachers ensure no-one is left out of conversations and play activities, in order to foster positive social integration within the context of an inner-city location, where a high percentage of pupils receive free school meals. Legal arguments Michaela introduced a formal ban on prayer inMarch 2023, prompted by a series of troubling incidents that followed pupils praying in the school yard, in view of passers-by. These incidents included a fake bomb threat, a brick thrown through a window and glass bottles thrown into the school yard. Despite arguing that the ban breached Article 9 of the European Charter on Human Rights – which allows freedom of thought, conscience and religion – the High Court held that there was no interference, given this was not an absolute right, but a freedom to do so. Considerable reliance was placed by the court on the fact that the pupil had been enrolled in a secular school that she knewwould provide restrictions on her ability to manifest her religion. There was no evidence that she couldn’t move to another school which would have allowed her to pray. For similar reasons, the court rejected the claim that the ban amounted to indirect discrimination under the Equality Act. Although the Court accepted that there was a detriment to the pupil, it ruled that the decision wasn’t discriminatory because it was proportionate to achieving a legitimate aim . The governing board was further judged to have not breached the public sector equality duty. Considerations for other schools Given the nature of Michaela Community School’s very specific operation, this case doesn’t give carte blanche freedom for schools to restrict their pupils’ ability to pray. Particular merit was attributed to Michaela’s unusually specific ethos and way of working, whichmeant pupils were not actually as ‘free’ at lunchtimes as they would be inmost schools. Tied in with the practical challenges of having a group of pupils pray separately, the ban was ruled as proportionate. While some may be surprised that this case wasn’t regarded as a detriment under human rights law, it does follow a similar line of school-related cases. The 2006 case, R/Begum v. Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School, for example, concerned uniform and the wearing of the jilbab. There, it was similarly ruled there was no Article 9 interference if a pupil could move to another school. Broadly speaking, however, school leaders should be cautious of banning pupils from taking part in prayer unless there are very good reasons to do so. These may include the practical arrangements for prayer not being possible, or being able to demonstrate how such practices aren’t co-operative with specific values exercised by the school over a sustained period of time. 37 teachwire.net/secondary L AW