Why was one of London’s top schools allowed to ban Muslim prayer? (2024)

A High Court judge has ruled that a prayer ban at one of Britain’s best performing state schools is “not unlawful”, following accusations of religious discrimination and intense controversy.

An unnamed Muslim pupil bought the case last year, claiming it “uniquely” impacted her Muslim faith.

Judge Linden ruled that the pupil had signed up to the school knowing its unique policy on prayer. He also found the suspension of the pupil was justified, as the pupil had been “extremely rude and defiant”, according to one teacher at the school’s account.

The ban, which was put into play in March last year, has sparked tensions at the school, where roughly 50 per cent of the students are Muslim.

Michaela Community School, Wembley, Greater London has often been described as “Britain’s strictest school”. It has also racked up an exceptionally strong record when it comes to GCSE results and university admissions.

Pupils are required to walk in strict single file between lessons, adhere to a rigid formal dress code, and attend a one-week “boot camp” at the start of term to learn its rules and regulations.

Jason Coppel, the barrister representing the school trust during the case, claimed that the school had been hit with “threats of violence” and as well asa “bomb hoax”, including bricks being thrown through one teacher’s window and staff being left “in fear of their lives”.

Katharine Birbalsingh, the school’s headteacher, doubled down her opposition to the case against the school in an official statement posted on X following the win.

“Can it be right for a family to receive £150,000 of taxpayer-funded legal aid to bring a case like this?” she said. “The judge is clear that the child’s statements were not written by her alone.”

“Indeed, this mum intends to send her second child to Michaela, starting in September.”

She added: “At the same time, this mum has sent a letter to our lawyers suggesting that she may take us to court yet again over another issue at the school she doesn’t like, presumably once again at the taxpayer’s expense.”

Why were the students suing?

Prayer is one of the five pillars of Islam, a compulsory practice all Muslims are expected to adhere to, regardless of whether they are following the Shia or Sunni branches of Islam. Muslims are generally expected to pray five times a day, though many only pray three times.

The pupil claimed during the case that the prayer ban is “the kind of discrimination which makes religious minorities feel alienated from society”.

She also argued that she was only asking to pray for short intervals of five minutes, and only during lunch time, and not during lessons.

There are roughly 400 Muslims currently at the school, out of a total student population of just over 800. According to the 2021 census, 21% of residents in the surrounding borough of Brent identify as Muslim.

The controversial prayer ban was introduced in March last year after 30 students started to pray in the school’s yard, using their uniform blazers to kneel on.

The school’s authorities said at the time that they were looking to avoid a “culture shift” and “segregation between religious groups”.

How did the school respond?

Katharine Birbalsingh has argued that all students of all religions have been forced to make some allowances under the school’s strict regime.

In a post defending the school’s decision, the headmistress explained how all students of the school eat vegetarian food at dinner time. This allows students from different religions to sit and eat together.

The headmistress also highlighted how other minority religions, such as the Christian sect Jevohah’s Witness, objected to the Shakespeare play Macbeth or how some Christian parents objected to the school hosting revision classes on Sundays.

“Multiculturalism can only succeedwhen we understand that every group must make sacrifices for the sake of the whole,” the controversial teacher argued.

Who is ‘Britain’s strictest headteacher’ Katharine Birbalsingh?

This isn’t the first time that the school’s headmistress, Katharine Birbalsingh, a former government social mobility tzar and Oxford graduate, has been embroiled in controversy.

She first made the news well over a decade ago, in 2010, for saying that the current curriculum is “so dumbed down that even the teachers know it” and that the education system “keeps poor children poor” at a Conservative Party conference.

She resigned from her post at St Michael and All Angels in Camberwell, London, shortly after the statements were made.

In April 2022, she ignited controversy yet again by saying that girls were avoiding A-level physics due to a dislike of “hard maths”.

After graduating, she spent over a decade teaching in London state schools, before grabbing her first bit of fame after founding an anonymous blog known as ‘To Miss With Love’.

Under the fake name “Miss Snuffy” she blogs about her experiences and her dissatisfaction with teaching London’s inner-city youth and the modern school system.

What could this mean for future cases?

Regardless of whether or not today’s ruling influences future judges’ decisions, Russell Sandberg, a professor at Cardiff Law School, thinks that today could encourage religious minorities to avoid taking similar cases in court in future.

The High Court is only the third most powerful court in the UK, below the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. This means there is always the possibility that future judges could decide differently in future discrimination cases.

However, Sandberg finds some aspects of the court’s decision concerning.

The professor thinks the court’s decision hinges on the fact the pupil chooses to be at the school, a legal idea known as ‘voluntary acceptance’. However, this idea could be used to justify all types of questionable behaviour from employers or schools.

Sandberg points out that the vast majority of people don’t, in practice, have infinite choices about their jobs or which school they attend. He also adds that the student’s parents chose the school – not the student – though the case concerned the daughter’s religious beliefs.

According to Sandberg, the majority of European courts have moved away from this approach to religious discrimination in recent years, and haven’t been taking ‘voluntary acceptance’ into account.

“Imagine the situation was reversed, you have someone in a faith school, who doesn’t want to obey their rules and engage in certain religious practices,” he explains. “Under the ‘voluntary acceptance’ rule, they would have no legal redress.”

Sailesh Mehta, a barrister at Red Lion Chambers, thinks that today’s ruling is fair and legally watertight.

“We all have a right to religious and philosophical freedom, including a right to be an atheist,” he explained. “It is enshrined in our law.”

“But the right is not without limits. A key aspect of the case was simply establishing that there have always been necessary limits to religious freedom.”

He added: “One such limit is in a secular school which parents sent their children to, knowing that it was secular.”

Mehta believes that an appeal is unlikely as the judge “applied the law carefully”.

But the ruling has been welcomed by some of the education’s most powerful figures.

Gillian Keegan, Secretary of State for Education, said that she has “always been clear that headteachers are best placed to make decisions in their school”.

“Michaela is an outstanding school, and I hope this judgement gives all school leaders the confidence to make the right decisions for their pupils,” she added in a post on X.

MORE : Police officer stabbed while answering 999 call

MORE : Controversial world-famous comedian announces last-minute London gigs

MORE : Surprising city named one of UK’s party capitals

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.