R v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School, ex p Begum
![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
R (Begum) v Denbigh High School | |
---|---|
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]
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 (
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
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
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
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
- Islam in the United Kingdom
- Islamic dress in Europe
- French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools
References
- ^ UKHL 15, House of Lords Decisions Retrieved 2014-06-25
- ISBN 978-0-19-966163-3.
- ^ [2004] EWHC 1389 (Admin)
- ^ [2005] EWCA Civ 199
- ^ "School wins Muslim dress appeal". BBC News. 22 March 2006. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
- ISBN 978-90-474-2350-8.
- ^ Halsbury's Laws of England, volume 88A: "School uniform, curriculum and discipline.", paragraph 444 (6th edition)
External links
- Video of Shabina Begum Just before verdict
- Judgment of the House of Lords
- The Appeal Court judgment (March 2, 2005)
- The High Court judgment (June 15, 2004)
- School wins Muslim dress appeal (March 22, 2006)
- Schoolgirl loses Muslim gown case (June 15, 2004)
- Schoolgirl wins Muslim gown case (March 2, 2005)