TTT, by her mother and litigation friend UUU, R (on the application of) v Michaela Community Schools Trust

The claim challenged the governing body’s decision to introduce a blanket prohibition on pupils performing prayer rituals on school premises (the "prayer ritual policy" or "PRP") and related fixed-term exclusions. The principal legal issues were (1) whether the PRP interfered with the claimant’s Article 9 ECHR right to manifest religion and, if so, whether that interference was justified; (2) whether the PRP amounted to indirect religious discrimination under s.19 read with s.85 of the Equality Act 2010; (3) whether the school breached the public sector equality duty (PSED) in s.149 of the Equality Act 2010 when adopting the PRP; and (4) whether the claimant’s fixed-term exclusions were procedurally unfair.

The court held that (i) there was no Article 9 interference requiring remedy because (a) the context of choosing a secular, disciplinarian school and the availability of making up missed prayers (qada) were material, and (b) the headteacher and governing body’s predictive judgments about cohesion, behaviour and logistical disruption were rational and entitled to weight; (ii) the PRP did not unlawfully indirectly discriminate because it was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims (school ethos, behaviour, safety and practical constraints); (iii) the governing body had had due regard under the PSED and any procedural imperfections would not have made a substantial difference (s.31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981); and (iv) procedural unfairness was found only in relation to the second fixed-term exclusion (28 April 2023) where the pupil was not given a fair opportunity to put her account before the decision-maker; the earlier two-day exclusion (23 March 2023) was lawful and/or within policy.

Background and parties. The claimant is a Muslim pupil who sought judicial review of Michaela Community Schools Trust’s decision to prohibit pupils from performing ritual prayers on school premises. The defendant is the free school and the London Borough of Brent was an interested party. The school had introduced the PRP after a rapid series of lunchtime prayer gatherings in March 2023 which, the headteacher said, gave rise to division, intimidation, safety concerns and online abuse. The claimant wished to perform the Duhr (midday) prayer during part of the lunch period.

Relief sought and procedural posture. The claimant sought relief on four grounds: (1) breach of Article 9 ECHR; (2) indirect religious discrimination contrary to s.85 read with s.19 of the Equality Act 2010; (3) breach of the public sector equality duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010); and (4) procedural unfairness in two fixed-term exclusions (23 March and 28 April 2023). Permission to apply was granted and the case was heard in January 2024.

Issues framed by the court.

• Whether the PRP constituted an interference with the claimant’s Article 9 rights and, if so, whether it was justified (proportional).
• Whether the PRP was a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) that put Muslim pupils at a particular disadvantage and, if so, whether it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim under s.19(2)(d) Equality Act 2010.
• Whether the governing body had had "due regard" to the statutory equality considerations in s.149 when adopting the PRP.
• Whether the headteacher followed fair procedure in imposing the two fixed-term exclusions.

Court’s reasoning and findings (concise account).

• Article 9: the court applied the settled law on Article 9 (distinguishing freedom to hold belief and the qualified right to manifest it) and reviewed whether the claimant had a realistic expectation to manifest Duhr at school. The court gave weight to the school’s judgments (margin of appreciation/deference to school managers) about cohesion and behaviour, found that qada (making up prayers) was an available and recognised mitigation in the circumstances, and concluded that there was no Article 9 interference requiring redress; alternatively, the PRP was proportionate given the legitimate aims and the practical/logistical problems the school identified.
• Indirect discrimination (s.19/s.85): the court found the PRP to be a PCP which did disadvantage Muslim pupils comparatively, but the school established that the PCP was a proportionate means to legitimate aims (protecting the team ethos, preventing segregation/peer pressure, safeguarding staff from abuse and resolving practical constraints). The proportionality analysis mirrored the Article 9 approach and involved deference to the school’s predictive judgments.
• PSED (s.149): the governing body had been presented with the relevant material and the court was satisfied that the governing body had had "due regard" to elimination of discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations. Allegations of factual inaccuracies or insufficiency of inquiry were examined; the court held that additional inquiry would not have been likely to change the outcome and, in the alternative, relief would be refused under s.31(2A) because it was highly likely the decision would have been the same.
• Exclusions/procedure: the two-day exclusion on 23 March 2023 was within the scope of guidance and, on the facts and context, the headteacher was entitled to act quickly and without a full pre-decision hearing of the pupil. The five-day exclusion of 28 April 2023 was procedurally unfair because the pupil was not given an opportunity to give her account before exclusion; that unfairness could not be shown to have been immaterial and the court upheld that ground.

Other matters. The court refused the school’s application for a private hearing and lifted anonymisation of the school/headteacher while maintaining anonymity for the pupil, her mother and other pupils/staff. The court emphasised the limited and context-dependent nature of its review, the importance of deference where school managers make predictive judgments about cohesion and operational constraints, and applied the Bank Mellat proportionality framework and relevant Article 9 authorities.

First instance: the claimant's application for judicial review succeeded in part and failed in part. Grounds 1 (Article 9), 2 (indirect discrimination) and 3 (PSED) were dismissed because the PRP was a proportionate response to legitimate aims in the particular school context and the governing body had had due regard under s.149; Ground 4(a) (the 2-day exclusion of 23 March 2023) was dismissed as lawful or not unfair in context; Ground 4(b) (the 5-day exclusion of 28 April 2023) was upheld as procedurally unfair because the pupil was not afforded an opportunity to give her account before exclusion. The court gave reasons based on proportionality, deference to school managerial judgment on cohesion and operational constraints, the availability of qada as mitigation, and the factual assessment of the exclusions and investigatory process.