1 month ago
.png)
A Muslim pupil today lost a High Court challenge against a ban on prayer rituals at a high-achieving school in London which was once dubbed Britain's strictest.
The student, who cannot be named, took legal action against Michaela Community School in Brent, claiming the policy was discriminatory and 'uniquely' affected her faith due to its ritualised nature.
She argued the school's stance on prayer - one of the five pillars of Islam - unlawfully breached her right to religious freedom and was 'the kind of discrimination which makes religious minorities feel alienated from society'.
The school, founded and led by headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh, a former government social mobility tsar, argued its prayer policy was justified after it faced death and bomb threats linked to religious observance on site.
In a written ruling issued at the High Court in London this morning, Mr Justice Linden dismissed the pupil's arguments against the prayer rituals ban. But the judge upheld the student's challenge to a decision to temporarily exclude her from the school.
The school's headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh said it was defending its 'culture and ethos'
The pupil took legal action against Michaela Community School in Brent, North London
Michaela Community School was targeted with death threats and abuse, the court was told
In an 83-page judgment dismissing the student's case, Mr Justice Linden said: 'It seems to me that this is a case ... where the claimant at the very least impliedly accepted, when she enrolled at the school, that she would be subject to restrictions on her ability to manifest her religion.
'She knew that the school is secular and her own evidence is that her mother wished her to go there because it was known to be strict.
'She herself says that, long before the prayer ritual policy was introduced, she and her friends believed that prayer was not permitted at school and she therefore made up for missed prayers when she got home.'
Mr Justice Linden continued in his ruling: 'The essential nature of the school regime is one which the claimant and her fellow pupils, or at least their parents, have chosen and, indeed, that they have chosen to remain at the school notwithstanding the prayer ritual policy (PRP).
'Although the claimant says that she is aware of resentment of the PRP amongst some Muslim pupils, there is no evidence that this has affected enrolment or led any of them to choose to leave.
'Nor, indeed, is there evidence of the issue being raised with the school since the PRP was introduced, other than in the context of this claim.
'On the contrary, the evidence is that since the PRP was introduced good relations within the school community have been restored.'
He added: 'Balancing the adverse effects of the PRP on the rights of Muslim pupils at the school with the aims of the PRP and the extent to which it is likely to achieve those aims, I have concluded that the latter outweighs the former and that the PRP is proportionate.'
Lawyers for the pupil told the judge at a hearing in January that the 'prayer ban' unlawfully breached her right to religious freedom, adding that it made her feel 'like somebody saying they don't feel like I properly belong here'.
The court was told the pupil, referred to only as TTT, was making a 'modest' request to be allowed to pray for around five minutes at lunch time, on dates when faith rules required it, but not during lessons.
The student also challenged allegedly unfair decisions to temporarily suspend her from school.
The school's lawyers claimed its prayer policy was 'justified' and 'proportionate' after it faced death and bomb threats linked to religious observance on site.
They added that the governors and headteacher at the school of some 700 pupils, about half of whom are Muslim, had 'a margin of latitude, discretion or judgment' over its policies.
During a two-day hearing, the school's founder and headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh said on social media that it was defending its 'culture and ethos' along with decisions to 'maintain a successful and stable learning environment where children of all races and religions can thrive'.
Posting on X, she said the school decided 'to stop prayer rituals when some pupils started them, against a backdrop of events including violence, intimidation and appalling racial harassment of our teachers'.
The court was told that Ms Birbalsingh, a former government social mobility tsar, first introduced the policy in March last year, with it being backed by the governing body in May - allegedly 'on the basis of misinformation and errors'.
In March 2023, up to 30 students began praying in the school's yard, using blazers to kneel on.
Lawyers for the school said students seen praying outside contributed to a 'concerted campaign' on social media over the school's approach to religion, with there also being a since-removed online petition attracting thousands of signatures.
The court heard the school was targeted with death threats, abuse, 'false' allegations of Islamophobia, and a 'bomb hoax'.
Reversing the school's 'emergency' ban would again expose it to 'an unacceptable risk of threats', its lawyers said, adding that it avoided 'the logistical disruption and detriments to other school activities'.
The court was told 'Muslim children were observed to be applying peer pressure to other Muslim children to act in certain ways', with the school claiming that allowing prayer rituals risked 'undermining inclusion and social cohesion between pupils'.
Following the hearing, Ms Birbalsingh told The Sunday Times the legal process was 'taking a massive toll' and argued the school should 'be allowed to be secular'.
She told the paper the school will 'definitely appeal if we lose', adding: 'I will not divide children according to race and religion; it will not happen under my watch.'
