R v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School, ex p Begum

Last updated

R (Begum) v Denbigh High School
Jilbab in Zanzibar (cropped).jpg
Jilbāb, of which its wearing is the center of this case.
Court House of Lords
Decided2006
Citation(s)[2006] UKHL 15, [2007] 1 AC 100
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Baroness Hale of Richmond
Keywords
Religious dress, religious discrimination, Human Rights Act 1998

R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] is a House of Lords case on the legal regulation of religious symbols and dress under the Human Rights Act 1998. [1]

Contents

The case involved Shabina Begum, a Muslim pupil at Denbigh High School in Luton, UK, who sued her school. [2] Begum opposed the schools requirement that she wear the shalwar kameez-style Denbigh school uniform instead of a longer, looser Muslim gown (a jilbāb), on the grounds that the uniform was not compliant with Sharia law. Begum lost her case in the High Court, [3] won on appeal to the Court of Appeal, [4] but then lost in March 2006 when the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords unanimously overturned the first appeal. [5] [6]

The case

Shabina Begum (Bengali : শবিনা বেগম; born in the UK, aged 16 at the time and of Bangladeshi origin), was a pupil at Denbigh High School in Luton, Bedfordshire. Four out of the six parent governors were Muslims, the Chair of the Luton Council of Mosques was a community governor and three of the LEA governors were also Muslims. However the school also contained a significant number of pupils of other faiths and the school wished to be inclusive in serving the needs of this diverse community and regarded the school uniform as promoting a sense of communal identity. In addition to uniforms incorporating trousers or skirts, female pupils are also offered a uniform based on the Pakistani or Punjabi shalwar kameez with optional khimar. The school uniform was decided upon in consultation with local mosques, religious organisations and parents. The School considered the shalwar kameez ideal as it was worn by several faith groups and, accordingly, helped to minimise the differences between them.

For two years, Ms. Begum attended the school without complaint, wearing the shalwar kameez, but in September 2002, Ms. Begum, accompanied by her brother and another young male, went to the school and asked that she be allowed to wear the long coat-like garment known as the jilbāb. In the opinion of Begum and her supporters, the particular form of shalwar kameez offered by the school was relatively close-fitting with short sleeves, and was therefore not compliant with the requirements of Islamic dress as they are stated in Sharia law. Shabina refused to attend for three years unless she was allowed to wear the jilbab to school. She said she believed that this was required by her Muslim faith, but also in contravention of the school uniform policy. In addition, the jilbab was, in the opinion of Begum and her supporters, a more culturally-neutral form of Islamic attire.

The school's supporters claimed that after Begum's parents had died, she had come under the undue influence of her brother Shuweb Rahman, a supporter of the pan-Islamist movement Hizb ut-Tahrir. They also argued that if Begum was allowed to attend classes wearing jilbab, other pupils would feel under pressure to adopt stricter forms of Islamic dress.[ citation needed ]

Begum, with her brother, issued a claim for judicial review of the school's decision not to allow her to wear the jilbab at school. The claim was made on the grounds that the school had interfered with her right to manifest her religion (Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and her right to education (Article 2(1) of the first protocol).

Judgment

Appeals

Begum lost the case in the High Court, but later won on appeal to the Court of Appeal. The school appealed against this decision, and the case was heard by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. The Department for Education and Skills was allowed to make submissions in the hearing in the House of Lords. The House of Lords ruled in favour of the school. Begum was represented in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords by the former Prime Minister's wife Cherie Blair QC.

House of Lords

Lord Bingham of Cornhill stressed at the outset of his judgment that,

this case concerns a particular pupil and a particular school in a particular place at a particular time. It must be resolved on facts which are now, for purposes of the appeal, agreed. The House is not, and could not be, invited to rule on whether Islamic dress, or any feature of Islamic dress, should or should not be permitted in the schools of this country.

The Law Lords took the view that a person's right to hold a particular religious belief was absolute (i.e. could not be interfered with), but that a person's right to manifest a particular religious belief was qualified (i.e. it could be interfered with if there was a justification).

Three of the five Law Lords held that Begum's rights had not been interfered with [7] (Lord Bingham, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Hoffmann), and two held that they had (Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and Baroness Hale of Richmond).

All five agreed, however, that in this particular case there were justifiable grounds for interference, one of the grounds being to protect the rights of other female students at the school who would not wish to be pressured into adopting a more extreme form of dress.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hijab</span> Traditional Islamic head covering or veil for women

In modern usage, hijab generally refers to various headcoverings worn by Muslim women. While a hijab can come in many forms, it often specifically refers to a headscarf, wrapped around the head and neck, covering the hair, neck, and ears but leaving the face visible. The use of the hijab has been on the rise worldwide since the 1970s and is viewed by many Muslims as expressing modesty and faith. There is a consensus among Islamic religious scholars that covering the head is either required or preferred, though some Muslim scholars and activists argue that it is not required. In practice, most Muslim women do choose to wear it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial functions of the House of Lords</span> Historical judicial role of the UK House of Lords

Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, for many centuries it had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers and for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court dress</span> Style of clothes prescribed for courts of law

Court dress comprises the style of clothes and other attire prescribed for members of courts of law. Depending on the country and jurisdiction's traditions, members of the court may wear formal robes, gowns, collars, or wigs. Within a certain country and court setting, there may be many times when the full formal dress is not used. Examples in the UK include many courts and tribunals including the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and sometimes trials involving children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools</span>

The French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools bans wearing conspicuous religious symbols in French public primary and secondary schools. The law is an amendment to the French Code of Education that expands principles founded in existing French law, especially the constitutional requirement of laïcité: the separation of state and religious activities.

<i>Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum</i> Maintenance lawsuit in India

Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [1985 (1) SCALE 767 = 1985 (3) SCR 844 = 1985 (2) SCC 556 = AIR 1985 SC 945], commonly referred to as the Shah Bano case, was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India, in which the Supreme Court delivered a judgment favouring maintenance given to an aggrieved divorced Muslim woman. Then the Congress government enacted a law with its most controversial aspect being the right to maintenance for the period of iddat after the divorce, and shifting the onus of maintaining her to her relatives or the Waqf Board. It was seen as discriminatory as it denied right to basic maintenance available to Muslim women under secular law.

<i>Jilbāb</i> Long and loose-fit coat or outer garment worn by some Muslim women

The term jilbāb refers to any long and loose-fit coat or outer garment worn by some Muslim women. Wearers believe that this definition of jilbāb fulfills the Quranic choice for a hijab. The jilbāb is also known as chador by Persian speakers in Iran and Afghanistan. The modern jilbāb covers the entire body. Some women will also cover the hands with gloves and the face along with a niqāb. In recent years, a short visor is often included to protect the face from the tropical sun.

Denbigh High School is an academy school in Luton, Bedfordshire, England. Colin Townsend was Headteacher, following Dame Yasmin Bevan's retirement as Executive Principal and Headteacher at the end of 2014. Donna Neely-Hayes as acting Headteacher, followed Townsend's departure to University of Birmingham School in late 2018.

John Anson Brightman, Baron Brightman, PC was a British barrister and judge who served as a law lord between 1982 and 1986.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciaries of the United Kingdom</span> Systems of courts of law in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland

The judiciaries of the United Kingdom are the separate judiciaries of the three legal systems in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, Employment Tribunals, Employment Appeal Tribunal and the UK tribunals system do have a United Kingdom–wide jurisdiction but judgments only apply directly to the jurisdiction from which a case originates as the same case points and principles do not inevitably apply in the other jurisdictions. In employment law, employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal have jurisdiction in the whole of Great Britain.

Punjabi culture grew out of the settlements along the five rivers which served as an important route to the Near East as early as the ancient Indus Valley civilization, dating back to 3000 BCE. Agriculture has been the major economic feature of the Punjab and has therefore formed the foundation of Punjabi culture, with one's social status being determined by landownership. The Punjab emerged as an important agricultural region, especially following the Green Revolution during the mid-1960's to the mid-1970's, has been described as the "breadbasket of both India and Pakistan". Besides being known for agriculture and trade, the Punjab is also a region that over the centuries has experienced many foreign invasions and consequently has a long-standing history of warfare, as the Punjab is situated on the principal route of invasions through the northwestern frontier of the Indian subcontinent, which promoted to adopt a lifestyle that entailed engaging in warfare to protect the land. Warrior culture typically elevates the value of the community's honour (izzat), which is highly esteemed by Punjabis.

<i>Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart</i> Leading English case on statutory interpretation

Pepper v Hart [1992] UKHL 3, is a landmark decision of the House of Lords on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation. Before this ruling, such an action would have been seen as a breach of parliamentary privilege.

Hijab and burka controversies in Europe revolve around the variety of headdresses worn by Muslim women, which have become prominent symbols of the presence of Islam in especially Western Europe. In several countries, the adherence to hijab has led to political controversies and proposals for a legal partial or full ban in some or all circumstances. Some countries already have laws banning the wearing of masks in public, which can be applied to veils that conceal the face. Other countries are debating similar legislation, or have more limited prohibitions. Some of them apply only to face-covering clothing such as the burqa, boushiya, or niqab; some apply to any clothing with an Islamic religious symbolism such as the khimar, a type of headscarf. The issue has different names in different countries, and "the veil" or hijab may be used as general terms for the debate, representing more than just the veil itself, or the concept of modesty embodied in hijab.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taqiyah (cap)</span> Short rounded skullcap worn by some Muslims

The Taqiyah, also known as tagiyah or araqchin is a short, rounded skullcap. It is often worn for cultural or religious purposes; for example, some Muslims believe that the Islamic prophet Muhammad used to keep his head covered, therefore making it mustahabb. Muslim men often wear them during the daily prayers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hijab by country</span> Main article for hijab

In modern usage, ḥijāb (hijab) generally refers to the various headcoverings frequently worn by Muslim women. Wearing hijab is mandatory in some Muslim countries, and optional or restricted in other majority Muslim and majority non-Muslim countries. In the Indonesian Aceh province, Muslim women are required to wear the hijab and all women are required to do so regardless of religion in Iran and Afghanistan. In countries such as Saudi Arabia, the hijab is not required. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Palestinian school officials have voted to require young girls to wear hijab, while Palestinian jihadists belonging to the Unified Leadership (UNLU) have rejected a hijab policy for women. They have also targeted those who seek to impose the hijab.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article 15 of the Constitution of Singapore</span> Guarantee of the freedom of religion

Article 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees freedom of religion in Singapore. Specifically, Article 15(1) states: "Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and to propagate it."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shalwar kameez</span> Trousers and tunic worn in South Asia

Shalwar kameez is a traditional combination dress worn by women, and in some regions by men, in South Asia, and Central Asia.

<i>McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd</i> 2010 UK court case

McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd[2010] EWCA Civ 880; [2010] IRLR 872; 29 BHRC 249 was an application in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales for permission to appeal against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, that a relationship counsellor dismissed for refusing to counsel same sex couples on sexual matters because of his Christian beliefs did not suffer discrimination under the Employment Equality Regulations 2003. The application was heard by Lord Justice Laws, who issued his decision on 29 April 2010 refusing the application.

The failure of a public authority to take into account relevant considerations and the taking of irrelevant ones into account are grounds of judicial review in Singapore administrative law. They are regarded as forms of illegality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Punjabi clothing</span> Clothing style associated with people of the Punjab region

In the ancient Punjab region, people wore cotton clothing. Both men and women wore knee-length tops. A scarf was worn over the tops which would be draped over the left shoulder and under the right. A large sheet would be further draped over one shoulder which would hang loose towards the knees. Both male and female wore a dhoti around the waist. Modern Punjabi dress has retained this outfit but over its long history has added other forms of dress.

<i>Begum v Home Secretary</i> 2021 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case

Begum v Home Secretary [2021] UKSC 7 is the short name of three closely connected proceedings considered together in the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, R v Special Immigration Appeals Commission; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department, concerning Shamima Begum, a woman born in the United Kingdom who at the age of 15 travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). Her intention to return to England in 2019 resulted in a public debate about the handling of returning jihadists.

References

  1. UKHL 15, House of Lords Decisions Retrieved 2014-06-25
  2. Anver M. Emon (26 July 2012). Religious Pluralism and Islamic Law: Dhimmis and Others in the Empire of Law. OUP Oxford. p. 291. ISBN   978-0-19-966163-3.
  3. [2004] EWHC 1389 (Admin)
  4. [2005] EWCA Civ 199
  5. "School wins Muslim dress appeal". BBC News. 22 March 2006. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
  6. Sylvie Langlaude (12 December 2007). The Right of the Child to Religious Freedom in International Law. BRILL. p. 227. ISBN   978-90-474-2350-8.
  7. Halsbury's Laws of England , volume 88A: "School uniform, curriculum and discipline.", paragraph 444 (6th edition)
BBC