G v St Gregory's Catholic Science College (Rev 1)

This judicial review concerned the lawfulness of a school uniform policy which prohibited boys from wearing cornrow hairstyles. The court applied the statutory tests for indirect discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 (as amended) and the equivalent provisions in the Equality Act 2010 (s.19 and s.85) and considered the scope of the public authority equality duty (s.71 RRA 1976; now s.149 EA 2010). The judge found that a prohibition on cornrows could amount to indirect racial discrimination insofar as it placed persons of African or African-Caribbean ethnicity who held cultural or family practices regarding non-cutting of hair at a particular disadvantage, and that the defendants had not shown the prohibition to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The claimant’s separate complaint of sex discrimination failed because the school’s appearance code, taken as a package, did not treat boys less favourably than girls. The court took into account DCSF guidance on uniform policies and emphasised that the absence of consultation and impact assessment under the equality duty was material to justification.

The claimant, an 11 year old boy of African-Caribbean ethnicity, was refused admission to St Gregory's Catholic Science College because he wore his hair in cornrows, a style prohibited by the school’s uniform and haircut policy. He challenged the policy as discriminatory on grounds of race and sex, and complained that the school had failed to discharge its equality duty and to follow DCSF guidance on uniforms. The case was litigated in the Administrative Court; the Equality and Human Rights Commission had been permitted to intervene but later withdrew.

The issues framed by the court were (i) whether the prohibition on cornrows constituted indirect racial discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976/equivalent provisions of the Equality Act 2010, and if so whether it was justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; (ii) whether the policy amounted to sex discrimination; and (iii) whether any failure to comply with the statutory equality duty affected justification.

The judge analysed the statutory tests for indirect discrimination (s.1(1A) RRA 1976; s.19 EA 2010 and s.85 EA 2010) and considered domestic precedent and guidance. Expert and witness evidence showed that cornrows can have intergenerational, family and cultural significance for some African and African-Caribbean families. Applying the legal test for group disadvantage, the judge concluded there was a class of persons who could suffer a particular disadvantage from the ban. The school’s stated legitimate aims (promoting discipline, cohesion and exclusion of gang-related traits) were accepted as legitimate, but the court found the school had not discharged the equality duty adequately and that the blanket prohibition, as applied to boys for whom cornrows were a culturally significant practice, was not shown to be a proportionate response. On sex discrimination, the court followed the package approach in Smith v Safeway Plc and held that different rules for boys and girls did not amount to less favourable treatment of boys overall; the sex discrimination claim failed.

The court therefore held that the policy, as applied to boys who for cultural/familial reasons do not cut their hair and wear cornrows, produced unlawful indirect race discrimination. The judge observed, however, that whether the defendants acted unlawfully at the time when they refused admission to this claimant depended on what they knew or ought reasonably to have known about his personal circumstances.

The court allowed the claim in part. It held that the school’s prohibition on cornrows, as applied to boys for whom non-cutting of hair and cornrows are part of a cultural/family practice, amounted to indirect racial discrimination and was not justified; the sex discrimination claim was dismissed because the appearance code, taken as a whole, did not treat boys less favourably than girls. The court emphasised the relevance of the public authority equality duty and DCSF guidance in assessing justification.