R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment

A statutory prohibition on corporal punishment by teachers did not violate the appellants’ Convention rights. The religious objective asserted could be pursued by parents personally administering reasonable chastisement for misconduct occurring at school.

On that common basis, section 548 of the Education Act 1996 did not materially interfere with the manifestation of religion under article 9 or with parental rights under article 2 of the First Protocol. An express parental authorisation did not remove a teacher’s conduct from the statutory prohibition.

Teachers and parents associated with independent Christian schools challenged section 548 of the Education Act 1996, as amended to prohibit corporal punishment by school staff at wholly private schools. They sought to retain a scheme of limited physical correction, agreed by parents, which they said formed part of Christian education.

Elias J in the Administrative Court dismissed their claim. The appellants contended that the prohibition breached article 9 and articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, and article 2 of the First Protocol. Following further submissions requested by the Court of Appeal, the central issue became whether the statutory restriction materially interfered with the asserted beliefs where parents could themselves administer any reasonable chastisement.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. All members of the court held that section 548 of the Education Act 1996 prevented teachers at the appellants’ schools from relying on the common-law justification of reasonable chastisement. The authority formerly enjoyed by a teacher arose from the teacher’s office when a child was placed in the school’s care. It was therefore unavailable even where parents had given general, or purportedly specific, consent.

2. The common basis of the judgments was that the prohibition did not materially interfere with any Convention right relied on. The asserted religious objective was that corporal punishment should be available for misconduct at school. That objective could be pursued by referring the matter to the parent, who could administer reasonable chastisement at school or at home without engaging section 548. Objections based on convenience, delay, or preferred educational method did not establish a conflict of religious or philosophical conviction with the statute.

3. Rix and Arden LJJ accepted that the parents’ belief could be religious and that correction, where required by that belief, could amount to manifestation under article 9. Buxton LJ held more fundamentally that teacher-administered corporal punishment was not a manifestation of religion and that the asserted belief lacked the cogency and cohesion required by article 2 of the First Protocol. Those differences did not affect the result.

4. Article 2 of the First Protocol protected parental, not teachers’, interests. In any event the parents could implement the asserted discipline and teach their children their beliefs. Articles 8 and 10 afforded no separate basis for challenge, and section 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998 did not assist.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed: [2002] EWCA Civ 1926.
• Administrative Court (High Court): Elias J dismissed the challenge to section 548 of the Education Act 1996. The citation of that decision is not stated in the judgment.