The case of (TTT) v Michaela Community Schools Trust raised issues of human rights breaches and discrimination
Background
Michaela Community Schools Trust ("the School") is a secular school renowned for being exceptionally strict and having exceptionally good academic results. The School roll reflects the ethnically diverse catchment area. Approximately half of the pupils are Muslim and there are also large numbers of Sikh, Hindu and Christian pupils. The School "aggressively" promotes integration between pupils of different faiths, cultures and ethnic backgrounds, including "guided socialisation" at lunchtime. It has a "team ethos" that prioritises the interests of the School community as a whole over the individual.
The School's governing body took the decision to ban prayer rituals in March 2023. Prior to then prayer rituals had been permitted but not encouraged. However there had been evidence emerging of the prayer rituals fostering division between the pupils. One of the pupils - TTT - attempted, with others, to perform prayer in breach of the ban, and was subsequently excluded for two days. She was also the subject of a subsequent five day exclusion for talking to another pupil about harming the School after the introduction of the ban.
High Court claims
TTT claimed that the introduction of the ban (1) breached her right to manifest her religious beliefs under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights; (2) indirectly discriminated against Muslim pupils; and (3) was contrary to the public sector equality duty ("PSED"). The PSED requires public authorities to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations - in the case the latter being between Muslim and non-Muslims. There was also a procedural claim relating to the exclusions from the School.
Under exception of the procedural matter, which was partially successful, the High Court dismissed the claims. As regards the alleged breach of Article 9, the High Court held the ban did not interfere with TTT's right to manifest her religious beliefs. She had been aware of the school's ethos and that it was secular before she joined, and had the option to move to an alternative school if she wished. In addition, her religion allowed her to perform the prayers at an alternative later time - known as Qada prayers. In addition, the ban was in any case justified on the basis of the school's ethos and the logistical disruption and detriments to other School activities caused by accommodating prayer rituals within the School building.
When considering the indirect discrimination claim the High Court acknowledged banning the performance of prayers at the appropriate time was a detriment, and that Muslim pupils were put at a particular disadvantage by the ban. However, it held that the ban was justified for the same reasons as it was in respect of the Article 9 claim so the indirect discrimination claim also failed.
Finally, as regards the PSED claim, the High Court found the School had had "due regard" to its duties thereunder.
What can be learnt from this judgment?
As is often the case, the judgment here arose from very case specific facts, particularly as regards the justification defence that the School presented. It is therefore not setting a precedent that schools can ban prayer rituals. However, if we compare the Court's views on the Article 9 claim - it found there was no interference with TTT's right to manifest her beliefs - with its view on the discrimination case - where it found TTT had been subjected to a detriment and therefore the School had to rely on the justification defence, it appears there is a lower threshold for evidencing indirect discrimination that there is for evidencing interference with the right to manifest religious beliefs. So, in future, similar claims made under the Equality Act may have greater prospects of success than those brought under the European Convention on Human Rights.
