UK: Of School Uniforms and Proportionality...

Last Updated: 24 April 2006
Article by Nicholas Dobson

The long battle of the Luton school uniform has ended as it begun with victory for the school. For (after a March 2005 diversion in the Court of Appeal) the House of Lords on 22 March 2006 restored the original decision of the High Court on 15 June 2004. This was that the refusal by Denbigh High School in Luton to allow a pupil to attend unless she wore prescribed school uniform did not constitute an interference with the pupil's right to manifest her belief in practice or observance. The Court of Appeal had been mistaken in directing the detailed procedural approach it had. The case in question is R (Begum (by her litigation friend, Rahman) v Headteacher and Governors Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15).

However, Lord Bingham emphasised that this case concerned 'a particular pupil and a particular school in a particular place at a particular time'. For the House of Lords 'is not, and could not be, invited to rule whether Islamic dress, or any feature of Islamic dress, should or should not be permitted in the schools of this country.' He considered that that 'would be a most inappropriate question for the House in its judicial capacity' and did not seek to address it.

Background

The School's dress code had been introduced following extensive consultation. One of the uniform options offered by the code was the shalwar kameeze which Lord Bingham noted was 'combination of the kameeze, a sleeveless smocklike dress with a square neckline, revealing the wearer's collar and tie, with the shalwar, loose trousers, tapering at the ankles'. For two years before the material date of 3 September 2002 (the first day of the autumn term) the respondent pupil, Shabina Begum, had worn the shalwar kameeze happily and without complaint. It was also worn by the respondent's sister who continued to wear it without objection throughout her time at the school. However, on that date the respondent, who was then aged nearly 14, went to the school with her brother and another young man and, in the absence of the headteacher, spoke to the assistant head. They insisted that the respondent be allowed to attend school clothed as she was in the jilbab, which was a 'long coat-like garment'. This was for religious reasons since the jilbab concealed the contours of the female body to a greater extent than the shalwar kameeze and was consequently said to be appropriate for maturing girls. The men 'talked of human rights and legal proceedings' and the assistant head 'felt that their approach was unreasonable and he felt threatened'.

The head teacher subsequently wrote to the respondent's mother and brother indicating (amongst other things) that the uniform had been agreed with the governing body and that the head teacher's view and that of the LEA was that the school uniform rules were more than reasonable in taking into account cultural and religious concerns. A committee of the governors subsequently upheld the head teacher's decision. The Education Welfare Service had offered to help the respondent with a transfer to another school if she wished. Whilst she applied to one school which was full she was told of two other schools where she could wear the jilbab but she did not apply to them.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion) provides that:

'1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2 . Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.'

The High Court

Bennett J in his June 2004 judgment had (amongst other things) considered that:

'. . .the school uniform policy and its enforcement has, and continues to have, a legitimate aim and is proportionate. The legitimate aim was the proper running of a multi-cultural, multi-faith, secular school. The limitation was also proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. The limitation was specifically devised with the advice of the Muslim community. Although it appears that there is a body of opinion within the Muslim faith that only the jilbab meets the requirements of its dress code there is also a body of opinion that the Shalwar Kameeze does as well. In my judgment, the adoption of the Shalwar Kameeze by the Defendant as the school uniform for Muslim (and other faiths) female pupils was and continues to be a reasoned, balanced, proportionate policy.'

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal took the view the School had approached the matter in the wrong way in starting from the premise that its uniform policy was there to be obeyed and if the Claimant did not like it she could go to a different school. The decision-making structure should therefore be along the following lines:

  1. Has the Claimant established that she has a relevant Convention right which qualifies for protection under Article 9(1)?
  2. Subject to any justification that is established under Article 9(2), has that Convention right been violated?
  3. Was the interference with her Convention right prescribed by law in the Convention sense of that expression?
  4. Did the interference have a legitimate arm?
  5. What are the considerations that need to be balanced against each other when determining whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society for the purpose of achieving that aim?
  6. Was the interference justified under Article 9(2)?

In the circumstances, Brooke LJ had considered that the School was not entitled to resist the declarations sought by the Claimant, namely that:

  1. That it unlawfully excluded her from school;
  2. That it unlawfully denied her the right to manifest her religion;
  3. That it unlawfully denied her access to suitable and appropriate education.

However, Brooke LJ did indicate that nothing in the judgment should be taken as meaning that it would be impossible for the School to justify its stance if it were to reconsider its uniform policy in the light of the instant judgment and were to determine not to alter it in any significant respect. The Court detailed some matters including which the School (and other schools facing a similar question) would no doubt need to consider and indicated that it may be desirable for DfES to give schools further guidance in the light of this judgment.

The House of Lords

However, the House of Lords saw things rather differently. Lord Bingham agreed with an academic commentator that the Court of Appeal's approach would introduce 'a new formalism' and be 'a recipe for judicialisation on an unprecedented scale'. In noting the academic view that the 'retreat to procedure is of course a way of avoiding difficult questions', he expressed the view that the court must confront the questions before it 'however difficult'.

Lord Bingham noted that Article 9 protects both the right to hold a belief, which is absolute, and a right to manifest belief, which is qualified. He said that it was common ground that at all material times the respondent sincerely held the religious belief in question which was not the less a religious belief because her belief may have changed (as it probably did) or because it was a belief shared by a small minority. In his view, the main questions for consideration were whether the respondent's freedom to manifest her belief was subject to interference within Article 9(2) and if so whether such interference was justified.

Interference with the Article 9 right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

He noted that the Strasbourg institutions 'have not been at all ready to find an interference with the right to manifest religious belief in practice or observance where a person has voluntarily accepted an employment or role which does not accommodate that practice or observance and there are other means open to the person to practise or observe his or her religion without undue hardship or inconvenience'. In the present case the respondent's family had chosen for her a school outside their own catchment area and one 'which went to unusual lengths to inform parents of its uniform policy'. Also, the shalwar kameeze and not the jilbab was worn by the respondent's elder sister throughout her time at the school and by the respondent herself for her first two years without objection. There was no evidence to show that there was any real difficulty in her attending one or other of these schools as she did in fact do 'and could no doubt have done sooner had she chosen'. Lord Bingham was therefore of the view that there was no interference with the respondent's right to manifest her belief in practice or observance.

Lord Hoffman, agreeing, indicated that Article 9 does not require that one should be allowed to manifest one's religion at any time and place of one's own choosing. For 'Common civility also has a place in the religious life'. He also upheld the essential public law principle (per Wednesbury) that it is 'for the courts of the United Kingdom to decide how the area of judgment. . .' allowed by the margin of appreciation '. . .should be distributed between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government'. Lord Hoffman took the view that '. . .a domestic court should accept the decision of Parliament to allow individual schools to make their own decisions about uniforms'.

Justification for any interference

Lord Bingham pointed out that to be justified under Article 9(2) a limitation or interference must be (a) prescribed by law and (b) necessary in a democratic society for a permissible purpose i.e. directed to a legitimate purpose and proportionate in scope and effect. As indicated, Lord Bingham rejected the formalistic approach of the Court of Appeal for three main reasons:

  1. The Strasbourg focus is not and never has been on whether a challenged decision or action is the product of a defective decision-making process but on whether the applicant's Convention rights have been violated.
  2. The Court's approach to an issue of proportionality under the Convention must go beyond the traditional domestic approach to judicial review and requires the domestic court to make an evaluation by reference to the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time.
  3. As indicated, the Court of Appeal's approach would introduce a 'new formalism' and be 'a recipe for judicialisation on an unprecedented scale'. Lord Bingham considered that 'what matters in any case is the practical outcome, not the quality of the decision-making process that led to it'.

In the circumstances, Lord Bingham considered that the School was 'fully justified in acting as it did'. For whilst it had 'taken immense pains to devise a uniform policy which respected Muslim beliefs' it nevertheless 'did so in an inclusive, unthreatening and uncompetitive way'. He considered that the power of decision had been given to the School for the compelling reason that they are best placed to exercise it and he saw no reason to disturb their decision.

Right to Education

Article 2 of the First Protocol to the Convention provides that:

'No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.'

Lord Bingham found no breach of this right. Whilst a twoyear interruption in the respondent's education must always be a subject for profound regret, it was the result of the respondent's unwillingness to comply with a rule to which the school was entitled to adhere and her failure to secure prompt admission to another school where her religious convictions could be accommodated.

Conclusion

So, it turns out that the High Court was right all along. The Lords' decision will clearly have come as a great relief to schools (and to all other local authority decision-makers). For whilst they must clearly always take Convention rights properly into account, they will now not have to go through a tortured and detailed legal analysis before taking any decision affecting such rights. For as Lord Hoffman pointed out: 'Head teachers and governors cannot be expected to make such decisions with textbooks on human rights law at their elbows'.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.