TTT, by her mother and litigation friend UUU, R (on the application of) v Michaela Community Schools Trust
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Judge | Mr Justice Linden |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 843 (Admin) |
| Date | 16 April 2024 |
| Year | 2024 |
| Counsel | Sarah Hannett Kc,Katy Sheridan,Jason Coppel Kc,Tom Cross,Miriam Benitez |
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDEN
Approved Judgment
TTT v School
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EWHC 843 (Admin) Case No: AC-2023-LON-001570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 16/04/2024
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDEN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
THE KING
(On the application of TTT, by her mother and
litigation friend UUU)
Claimant
- and -
MICHAELA COMMUNITY SCHOOLS TRUST
-and-
LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT
Defendant
Interested
Party
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sarah Hannett KC and Katy Sheridan (instructed by Simpson Millar LLP) for the Claimant
Jason Coppel KC and Tom Cross (instructed by Sinclairs Law Ltd ) for the Defendant
Miriam Benitez (instructed by HKW Legal) for the Interested Party (written submissions only)
Hearing dates: 16 and 17 January 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.45am on 16 April 2024 by circulation to the
parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDEN
Approved Judgment
TTT v School
Contents
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1
THE PROCEEDINGS ............................................................................................................. 2
APPROACH TO THE EVIDENCE....................................................................................... 5
APPROACH TO THE GROUNDS AND CONCLUSION .................................................. 5
THE FACTS IN MORE DETAIL .......................................................................................... 5
The Claimant and her beliefs .................................................................................................. 5
Professor Siddiqui’s evidence ................................................................................................. 8
The School................................................................................................................................. 9
The events which led to the introduction of the PRP ......................................................... 18
The new term .......................................................................................................................... 21
The Governing Body’s decision to introduce the ritual prayer policy .............................. 22
GROUND 1: BREACH OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON
HUMAN RIGHTS? ............................................................................................................... 26
The legal framework .............................................................................................................. 26
Overview of Article 9 EHCR ................................................................................................ 26
The extent of the court’s inquiry into whether a person holds a professed belief ........... 27
Is a given act a manifestation of the relevant belief? ......................................................... 28
“Limitation” of/interference with freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs ............. 28
Article 9(2) ............................................................................................................................... 31
The test for proportionality ...................................................................................................... 31
The relevance of the procedure adopted by the decision maker .............................................. 32
The weight to be given judgments made by the decision maker .............................................. 32
The importance of the aims of Article 9/pluralism .................................................................. 34
Was there an interference with the Claimant’s Article 9 rights in this case? .................. 35
The Claimant’s submissions on the evidence .......................................................................... 35
Conclusion on interference ...................................................................................................... 36
Article 9(2): the issue of proportionality .............................................................................. 38
The School’s arguments ........................................................................................................... 38
The Claimant’s arguments ....................................................................................................... 39
Discussion and conclusions ..................................................................................................... 41
Conclusion on Ground 1 ........................................................................................................ 45
GROUND 2: INDIRECT RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION CONTRARY TO
SECTION 85 OF THE EQUALITY ACT 2010? ................................................................ 45
Statutory framework ............................................................................................................. 45
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDEN
Approved Judgment
TTT v School
“Detriment” .............................................................................................................................. 46
“Particular disadvantage” ......................................................................................................... 47
Was the PRP a “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”? ................................... 48
Was the Claimant subjected to a “detriment” in this case?............................................... 49
The submissions ....................................................................................................................... 49
Conclusion on “detriment” ...................................................................................................... 50
Was the PRP “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”? ........................... 51
Conclusion on Ground 2 ........................................................................................................ 51
GROUND 3: BREACH OF THE PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITY DUTY UNDER
SECTION 149 OF THE EQUALITY ACT 2010? .............................................................. 51
Statutory framework ............................................................................................................. 51
Caselaw ................................................................................................................................... 52
The Claimant’s case on Ground 3 ........................................................................................ 55
Discussion and conclusions in relation to Ground 3 ........................................................... 60
The argument under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 ................................. 63
Conclusion on Ground 3 ........................................................................................................ 65
GROUND 4: PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS IN EXCLUDING THE CLAIMANT? .. 65
Legal framework .................................................................................................................... 66
The School’s Exclusion Policy............................................................................................... 67
The overall position of the School......................................................................................... 68
GROUND 4(a): the two day fixed term exclusion on 23 March 2023 ............................... 70
Ground 4(b): the 5 day fixed term exclusion from 28 April 2023 ..................................... 71
APPENDIX 1: REASONS FOR DECISION ON DEROGATIONS FROM OPEN
JUSTICE ................................................................................................................................. 73
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting