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

The House of Lords held that section 548 of the Education Act 1996 (as amended by the School Standards and Framework Act 1998), which prohibits corporal punishment by school staff, is compatible with Convention rights. The court accepted that the appellants' sincerely held beliefs about the use of mild corporal punishment could attract protection under article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that article 2 of the First Protocol engaged the parents' interests in their children's education. The statutory ban was nevertheless a lawful interference with the manifestation of those beliefs and was justified under article 9(2) as prescribed by law, pursuing the legitimate aim of protecting children and proportionately implemented in a democratic society.

This appeal was brought by head teachers, teachers and parents of pupils at four independent schools challenging the extension in 1998 of a statutory ban on corporal punishment to all schools. The appellants sought declarations (and related relief) that section 548 of the Education Act 1996 was incompatible with their rights under article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and article 2 of the First Protocol (parents' right to ensure education in conformity with their convictions).

The issues framed were:

• the proper interpretation of section 548 and whether parental delegation of disciplinary powers could take conduct outside its scope;
• whether the appellants' beliefs satisfied the threshold for protection under article 9 and article 2 of the First Protocol;
• whether application of section 548 constituted an interference with the manifestation of those beliefs;
• if so, whether that interference was justified under article 9(2) (prescribed by law, pursuing a legitimate aim, and necessary in a democratic society).

The House of Lords (unanimously) held that section 548 plainly covers corporal punishment administered by teachers in the course of their functions and cannot be avoided simply by parental delegation. The court accepted the sincerity and adequacy of the appellants' beliefs for Convention protection and found that placing children in schools practising corporal punishment or authorising schools to administer it amounted to a manifestation of belief. The amended provision did materially interfere with that manifestation. However, that interference was prescribed by primary legislation, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting children's physical and moral integrity, and was proportionate: Parliament was entitled to adopt a universal ban as a policy choice to protect vulnerable children and to promote non-violent methods of discipline. The appeal was dismissed.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that (i) section 548 covers corporal punishment by teachers acting in their professional capacity and is not avoided by parental delegation; (ii) the appellants' beliefs could engage article 9 and article 2 of the First Protocol and section 548 did interfere with the manifestation of those beliefs; but (iii) that interference was justified under article 9(2) as prescribed by law, pursuing the legitimate aim of protecting children and being proportionate in a democratic society.

First instance: Elias J (reported at [2002] ELR 214). Court of Appeal: (Buxton, Rix and Arden LJJ) (reported at [2003] QB 1300; on appeal from [2002] EWCA Civ 1926). Appeal to House of Lords allowed to be heard and judgment given at [2005] UKHL 15.