The High Court has held in R (TTT) v Michaela Community Schools Trust that a school's prohibition of ritual prayer on site did not interfere with a Muslim pupil's right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), nor did it constitute indirect religious discrimination contrary to section 85 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) which prohibits discrimination in schools.
TTT was a pupil at Michaela Community Schools Trust (MCST), a secular secondary free school. MCST had pupils from diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds; around half of these were Muslims. MCST described its "ethos" as including a strict approach to discipline and a focus on the needs of pupils as a team rather than as individuals. It also promoted integration between pupils from different faiths, cultures and ethnic backgrounds and minimised the social distinctions between them.
Prayer was permitted at the school but, in March 2023, MCST's governing body decided to prohibit its pupils from performing prayer rituals on the school's premises. This was described as the prayer ritual policy (PRP) and applied to all prayer rituals. The school's headteacher considered that prayer rituals would foster division among pupils (including between Muslim pupils) contrary to the school's ethos and would also compromise important school activities during the lunch break.
Before the PRP was introduced TTT attempted to perform prayer on school premises and was subject to a two-day fixed exclusion for challenging a teacher about the issue. This was followed by a later five-day exclusion for talking to another pupil about harming the school because of the PRP. TTT claimed that MCST's refusal to allow her to perform prayers breached her right to freedom to manifest her religious beliefs under Article 9 of the ECHR, although she wished to remain at MCST.
TTT failed in her Article 9 claim. The court did not accept that her rights had been interfered with; she was aware that the school was secular and her mother wanted her to attend because it was known to be strict. Before the PRP was introduced she had believed that prayer was not permitted at school and had made up for missed prayers at home. She had not shown that there would be undue hardship or inconvenience if she had to move to a different school which permitted her to pray during the school day. Even if it was wrong that there had been no interference with the claimant's rights the court did not consider that any interference would have been unjustified. It found that there was a rational connection between the PRP and the school's behavioural policy and ethos and that furthering this policy and ethos were legitimate aims. A balancing exercise was required between the severity of the PRP's effects on individuals' rights against the importance of its objectives. The vast majority of Muslim parents and pupils had not raised the issue with the school, and TTT had chosen to remain at MCST despite the policy.
Take note: The court in Michaela Community Schools Trust held that TTT did not have an absolute right to manifest her religious belief. Even if she had been able to show that there had been an interference with her Article 9 rights, the court considered that MCST's ethos which promoted secularity and discipline would have meant that any such interference would have been justified in the furtherance of those aims.
