In the matter of an application by JR87 and another for Judicial Review [2025] UKSC 40

A young girl and her father challenged Christian religious education and collective worship in a Northern Ireland primary school as contrary to Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR. The Supreme Court held that the core syllabus was not objective, critical and pluralistic, and the parental right of withdrawal was insufficient to prevent a breach due to risks of stigmatisation and undue burden.

Facts

JR87, a young girl, attended a controlled primary school in Northern Ireland between the ages of four and seven. Her parents, who are humanist in outlook and do not profess any religious beliefs, challenged the legality of the Christian religious education and collective worship provided at the school. The school followed the core syllabus specified by the Department of Education, which was drafted exclusively by representatives of the four main Christian churches (Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, and Methodist).

The parents did not exercise their statutory right to withdraw JR87 from religious education and collective worship due to concerns about: stigmatisation of their daughter (she would have been the only child withdrawn from approximately 250-275 pupils); the risk of being perceived as difficult parents; the burden of negotiating alternative arrangements with the school; and the potential exposure of their private philosophical convictions.

Issues

Primary Issues

1. Whether the teaching of religious education and collective worship at the school was conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner as required by Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR read with Article 9 ECHR.

2. Whether the statutory right of parents to withdraw their child from religious education and collective worship was sufficient to prevent a breach of A2P1 read with Article 9 ECHR.

3. Whether conveying knowledge in a manner which is not objective, critical and pluralistic is synonymous with indoctrination.

Cross-Appeal Issue

Whether the claims of JR87 and her father G should have been separately analysed and determined.

Judgment

Core Syllabus Not Objective, Critical and Pluralistic

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal that the core syllabus did not convey religious education in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. Lord Stephens noted:

It was the inevitable consequence of leaving the drafting of the core syllabus to the four main churches. All four main churches seek to promote faith in Christianity as an absolute truth rather than knowledge about Christianity.

The Court identified several deficiencies: complete absence of plurality regarding other religions in Foundation Stage and Key Stages 1 and 2; no commitment to objectivity or critical thought development; and content encouraging pupils to accept Christian beliefs without critical analysis.

Indoctrination and Non-Objective Teaching

The Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s distinction between indoctrination and conveying knowledge in a non-objective manner. Lord Stephens stated:

The decision in Folgerø clearly establishes that the judge was correct and that the two concepts are simply different sides of the same coin.

The Court also rejected the submission that a breach of A2P1 required a finding that the State was pursuing an aim of indoctrination:

In circumstances where indoctrination has occurred, making a breach of A2P1 dependent on a finding that the State had pursued the aim of indoctrination would make the rights of parents and pupils theoretical and illusory, by depriving them of a remedy where they had suffered a wrong.

Right of Withdrawal Insufficient

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the statutory right of withdrawal was sufficient to prevent a breach. Lord Stephens identified multiple errors by the Court of Appeal, including incorrectly imposing a requirement that parental apprehensions be objectively justified:

In considering whether there is capacity for an undue burden reasonable apprehensions on the part of parents are sufficient. Such apprehensions can include the risks of: (a) stigmatisation of them and/or their child; (b) conflict with the school authorities; and (c) exposure of sensitive areas of their private lives.

The Court reinstated the trial judge’s factual finding that the parents’ concerns were valid and that exercising the right to withdraw was capable of placing an undue burden on them.

Children’s Rights Under A2P1

On the cross-appeal, the Court confirmed that both parents and children hold rights under A2P1 read with Article 9 ECHR:

the first sentence of A2P1 must be read in the light of the second sentence of that provision and article 9 ECHR; (d) when read in that way, the first sentence of A2P1 guarantees schoolchildren the right to education in a form which respects their right to believe or not to believe.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for religious education in Northern Ireland. It establishes that:

1. A core syllabus drafted exclusively by religious bodies, focused on promoting faith rather than imparting knowledge about religion, does not meet Convention requirements.

2. A statutory right of withdrawal does not cure a deficient curriculum where exercising that right risks stigmatisation of children or places undue burdens on parents.

3. The Department of Education has positive duties to inspect religious education provision and take action to prevent indoctrination.

4. Children, not only parents, have Convention rights to education that respects their right to believe or not to believe.

The Transferors’ Representative Council acknowledged the deficiencies and sought a review of the core syllabus to make study of other faiths mandatory from the Foundation Stage.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal’s decision was reversed and the declaration made by the High Court was reinstated, declaring that the teaching of religious education under the core syllabus and the arrangements for collective worship at the school breached the rights of both JR87 and her father G under Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR read with Article 9 ECHR. The Department’s cross-appeal was dismissed.

Source: In the matter of an application by JR87 and another for Judicial Review (UKSC/2024/0095)