R (TTT) v Michaela Community Schools Trust – school prohibition of ritual prayer on site

R (TTT) v Michaela Community Schools Trust [2024]

In the recent case of R (TTT) v Michaela Community Schools Trust, the High Court held the following in regards to the school’s prohibition of ritual prayer on site:

1. It did not interfere with a Muslim’s pupil’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under Article 9 of the ECHR;
2. It did not constitute to indirect religious discrimination; and
3. The school’s governing body and headteacher had not breached their public sector equality duty.

Background

Micaela Community Schools Trust (MCST) is a non-faith secondary free school. The school has around 700 pupils form diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds, with around half of the pupils being Muslim.

MCST has a strict approach to discipline and the school’s ethos focuses on the needs of the pupils as a team rather than as individuals. A key element of the school’s “disciplinary ethos” is minimising the social distinction between pupils from different faiths, cultures and ethnic background by “aggressively” promoting integration between them.

TTT (the claimant) attempted to pray in the school playground with others and was subject to a two day fixed term exclusion in March 2023 for challenging a teacher about the issue. MCST’s governing body decided to then prohibit its pupils from performing prayer rituals on school’s premises.

MCST considered that prayer rituals would foster division among pupils (including between Muslim pupils), contrary to the school ethos. Additionally, there was inadequate space on the site for a prayer room. Therefore, prayers in the school playground would compromise important school activities during the lunch break. The policy caused an angry response from the local community, including an online campaign, bomb threat and intimidation.

It was TTT’s position that the policy prevented her from performing the duhr prayer in the designated window during autumn and winter. TTT explained the prayer would be conducted during her lunch break which is her “free time”. Additionally, there was no evidence that pupils of any religion, besides Islam, would wish to perform prayer rituals during the school day. Following the introduction of this policy, TTT was put on a five day fixed term exclusion in April 2023 for talking with another pupil about harming the school because of the policy.

TTT claimed that:

1. MCST’s refusal to allow her to perform duhr breached her right to freedom to manifest her religious beliefs under Article 9 of the ECHR.
2. The policy indirectly discriminated against Muslim pupils.
3. MCST breached their public sector equality duty by failing to have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.
4. The fixed term exclusions that she was subjected to were procedurally unfair because she was not given an opportunity to explain her version of events.

High Court Decision

In relation to ground 1, the court rejected the claim that the policy breached TTT’s right to freedom to manifest her religious belief. The court stated the student and her parent voluntarily accepted the school’s secular and strict nature. Before the policy was introduced, TTT and her peers believed that prayer was not permitted at school and had been making up missed prayers when she got home. TTT had consistently accepted restrictions on her ability to pray. Additionally, the court cited R (Begum)  v Headteachers and Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] stating TTT had not shown that there would be undue hardship or inconvenience in the context of Article 9 if she has to move to a different school which permitted her to pray during the school day.

The court also rejected TTT’s second and third claim. The court accepted MCST’s policy would put TTT at a particular disadvantage because Muslim pupils were more likely than pupils of other faiths or no religion to wish to undertake ritual prayer. However, the court determined when MCST’s governing body were deciding on the policy, that there was no “hidden impacts” and MCST’s governing body presented briefing notes which evidenced their consideration surrounding indirectly discriminating Muslim pupils. The policy was determined to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The disadvantage to Muslim pupils caused by the policy was outweighed by the aims it sought to promote in the interests of the school community as a whole, including Muslim pupils.

In relation to the final ground, the court held that when the school excluded TTT for five days without first hearing her version of events, this did breach their duty to act fairly. The school had acted inconsistently by failing to have any regard to the DfE’s statutory guidance or their own exclusion policy.

Comments

The level of strictness of the school’s policy is unusual and was a significant factor in the court’s findings on proportionality in relation to Article 9 and indirect religious discrimination.  The wider implications of the case is unclear in relation to how the court would consider a case with similar facts but different code or ethos.

Further support and guidance

If you need advice on the issues covered in this article, please contact Catherine Daw or take advantage of our free 30-minute consultation with our employment law experts.

This content is correct at time of publication