The claimants sought a declaration that the restriction on the infliction of corporal punishment in schools infringed their human right of freedom of religion. The schools concerned were Christian schools who believed that moderate corporal discipline was required in order to give expression to their religious beliefs. The respondent argued that the beliefs asserted, whilst genuine, were not religious beliefs protected under the Convention.
Held: The ban did not infringe their human rights. The beliefs asserted were cogent and sincere as required in Cosans. The fact that certain acts would only constitute an expression of a religious belief if conducted with a certain motivation did not prevent them being such an expression when they occurred. The acts sought to be allowed would therefore be expressions of religious belief for these individuals, and the restriction did demonstrate a failure to respect that belief. However the rules would not prevent the administration of corporal punishment by parents, and the schools could refer a child back to his parents, who would not be restricted. The restriction did not therefore interfere with the rights of the parents to express their religious beliefs.
Buxton, Rix, Arden LJJ
Times 18-Dec-2002, [2003] QB 1300, [2002] EWCA Civ 1926, [2003] ELR 176
Bailii
Education Act 1996 548, European Convention on Human Rights Art 9.2 First Protocol Art 2
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Campbell and Cosans v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Feb-1982
To exclude a child from school for as long as his parents refused to let him be beaten ‘cannot be described as reasonable and in any event falls outside the State’s power of regulation in article 2’. The Convention protects only religions and . .
Appeal from – Regina (Williamson and Others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment Admn 15-Nov-2001
A genuine religious belief which supported the use of corporal punishment in schools was not itself either a manifestation of religious belief which required protection under the convention, or a religious and philosophical conviction for the . .
Cited – Edgington v Fitzmaurice CA 7-Mar-1885
False Prospectus – Issuers liable in Deceit
The directors of a company issued a prospectus, falsely stating that the proceeds were to be used to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to purchase horses and vans and to develop the trade of the company. In fact it was to pay off . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Admn 26-Apr-2004
The claimants sought a declaration that part of the Regulations were invalid, and an infringement of their human rights. The Regulations sought to exempt church schools from an obligation not to discriminate against homosexual teachers.
Held: . .
Cited – Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal Court Admn 7-Oct-2004
The defendant claimed that he had gone absent without leave from the RAF as a conscientous objector.
Held: The defendant had not demonstrated by complaint to the RAF that he did object to service in Iraq. In some circumstances where there was . .
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others ex parte Williamson and others HL 24-Feb-2005
The appellants were teachers in Christian schools who said that the blanket ban on corporal punishment interfered with their religious freedom. They saw moderate physical discipline as an essential part of educating children in a Christian manner. . .
Cited – McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd CA 29-Apr-2010
The employee renewed his application for leave to appeal against refusal of his discrimination claim on the grounds of religious belief. He worked as a relationship sex therapist, and had signed up to the employer’s equal opportunities policy, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education, Children, Human Rights, Ecclesiastical
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.178520