The applicant, a Muslim girl sought to be allowed to wear the gilbab to school. The school policy which had been approved by Muslim clerics prohibited this, saying the shalwar kameeze and headscarf were sufficient. The school said she was making a voluntary choice not to attend.
Held: The applicant was not choosing to stay away but was had been excluded. A schoolchild has no free choice of school as might an adult the freedom to choose where to work. ‘SB’s freedom to manifest her religion or beliefs may only be subject to limitations that are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ The school was concerned that wearing the gilbab might put other pupils under pressure. The student’s religious beliefes were genuine. The school should have asked in turn whether the pupil had a Convention right capable of protection, was the right being violated, was the interference prescribed by law, did it pursue a legitimate purpose, were there any balancing interests to see whether the interference was necessary, and lastly was the interference justified under the Convention. The school had failed to start from the acknowledgement of the pupil’s right to express her religious belief in the way she genuinely thought proper. The school needed to approach the issue correctly. If it did so it might come to the same or to a new conclusion. The declaration was granted.
Judges:
Lord Justice Brooke Vice-President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division) Lord Justice Mummery And Lord Justice Scott Baker
Citations:
[2005] EWCA Civ 199, Times 04-Mar-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 3372
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 9(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Leyla Sahin v Turkey ECHR 29-Jun-2004
(Grand Chamber) The applicant had been denied access to written examinations and to a lecture at the University of Istanbul because she was wearing an Islamic headscarf. This was prohibited not only by the rules of the university but also by the . .
Appeal from – Begum, Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School Admn 15-Jun-2004
A schoolgirl complained that she had been excluded from school for wearing a form of attire which accorded with her Muslim beliefs.
Held: The school had made great efforts to establish what forms of wear were acceptable within the moslem . .
Cited – Kokkinakis v Greece ECHR 25-May-1993
The defendant was convicted for proselytism contrary to Greek law. He claimed a breach of Article 9.
Held: To say that Jehovah’s Witness were proselytising criminally was excessive. Punishment for proselytising was unlawful in the . .
Cited – Hasan and Chaush v Bulgaria ECHR 26-Oct-2000
The Grand Chamber considered executive interference in the appointment of the Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims: ‘Where the organisation of the religious community is at issue, Article 9 must be interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the . .
Cited – Dahlab v Switzerland ECHR 15-Feb-2001
(Commission) A primary school teacher had been prohibited from wearing an Islamic headscarf at her school.
Held: The complaint was inadmissible. The court acknowledged the margin of appreciation afforded to the national authorities when . .
Cited – Ali v The Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School CA 29-Mar-2004
The student had been unlawfully excluded from school. The school had not complied with the procedural requirements imposed by the Act.
Held: Though the 1996 Act placed the responsibilty for exclusion upon the local authority, the head and . .
Cited – Ahmad v United Kingdom ECHR 1981
(Commision) The applicant was a devout Muslim. His religious duty was to offer prayers on Fridays and to attend a mosque if possible. He was employed as a full time primary school teacher. He complained that he was forced to resign because he was . .
Cited – Stedman v United Kingdom ECHR 9-Apr-1997
(Commission) The applicant alleged that her dismissal for refusal to work on Sundays constituted a violation of her freedom to manifest her religion in worship, practice and observance, contrary to Article 9.
Held: The Commission first had to . .
Cited by:
Cited – Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd CA 25-Jul-2005
The claimant said that his employer had failed to respect his right to express his beliefs by obliging him, though a Christian, to work on Sundays.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The Commission’s position on Article 9, as I understand it, is that, . .
Cited – Singh and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police QBD 4-Nov-2005
A play was presented which was seen by many Sikhs as offensive. Protesters were eventually ordered to disperse under s30 of the 2003 Act. The defendants appealed their convictions for having breached that order, saying that it interfered with their . .
Appeal from – Begum (otherwise SB), Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School HL 22-Mar-2006
The student, a Muslim wished to wear a full Islamic dress, the jilbab, but this was not consistent with the school’s uniform policy. She complained that this interfered with her right to express her religion.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri HL 6-May-2009
The applicant had claimed asylum after fleeing Afghanistan to Greece and then to the UK. On the failure of his application, he would be returned to Greece, but objected that he would thence be returned to Afghanistan where his human rights would be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education, Human Rights
Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223110