A humanist father and his young daughter challenged Christian religious education and collective worship at a Northern Ireland primary school as breaching Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR. The Supreme Court held the parental right of withdrawal was insufficient to prevent a breach, as it was capable of placing an undue burden on parents and risking stigmatisation of the child.
Background
The appellants, JR87 (a young girl) and her father G, challenged the legality of religious education and collective worship at a controlled primary school in Northern Ireland which JR87 attended between the ages of four and seven. JR87’s parents are not Christians and are broadly humanist in outlook. They did not wish JR87 to be raised as a Christian or taught to assume Christianity is an absolute truth. They supported religious education provided it was objective, critical, and pluralistic.
The school followed the core syllabus for religious education specified by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. That core syllabus had been drafted exclusively by representatives of the four main Christian churches (Church of Ireland, Presbyterian Church in Ireland, Methodist Church in Ireland, and the Catholic Church). The core syllabus focused entirely on Christianity at the Foundation Stage and Key Stages 1 and 2, with no reference to other world faiths until Key Stage 3. External persons granted access to pupils for religious education at the school were exclusively Christian ministers and representatives of Christian organisations.
The parents did not exercise their statutory right under article 21(5) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to withdraw JR87 from religious education and collective worship, citing concerns about stigmatisation (JR87 would have been the only child out of 250-275 pupils withdrawn), undue burden in negotiating alternative arrangements with the school, risk of exposure of their private convictions, and the deterrent effect of potential conflict with the school.
Procedural History
In the High Court, Colton J found that religious education and collective worship at the school were not conveyed in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner, and that the parental right of withdrawal was insufficient to prevent a breach of Article 2 of Protocol 1 (A2P1) to the ECHR read with Article 9 ECHR. He granted a declaration to that effect but declined to quash the subordinate legislation.
The Court of Appeal ([2024] NICA 34) upheld the finding that religious education was not conveyed in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner, but reversed the High Court on the withdrawal issue, holding that the unqualified statutory right of withdrawal meant the State was not pursuing the forbidden aim of indoctrination and that the parents’ fears of stigmatisation and undue burden would not have been realised in practice.
The Issue(s)
The main appeal
Whether the parental right to withdraw JR87 from religious education and collective worship was sufficient to prevent a breach of A2P1 read with Article 9 ECHR, in circumstances where the religious education was not conveyed in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner.
The cross-appeal
Whether the High Court judge erred in failing to separately analyse and determine the claims made by JR87 and G respectively.
The Court’s Reasoning
Indoctrination and the objective, critical, and pluralistic standard
Lord Stephens, delivering the unanimous judgment, held that the Court of Appeal erred in drawing a distinction between conveying knowledge in a manner which was not objective, critical, and pluralistic on the one hand, and indoctrination on the other. The Supreme Court held these are simply different sides of the same coin, as established by the Grand Chamber in Folgerø v Norway. 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 Department’s submission that a breach of A2P1 required a separate 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.
The right of withdrawal and undue burden
The Court held that established principles of Convention law as to undue burden apply equally to automatic (unconditional) exemptions as to partial exemptions. The Court of Appeal had erroneously concluded that because no Strasbourg case had found an automatic exemption insufficient, domestic courts could not so find under the Ullah principle. Lord Stephens explained:
Mr McGleenan, on behalf of the Department, accepted, in my view correctly, that the established principle of Convention law as to the practicality and effectiveness of Convention rights must apply to automatic as well as to partial exemptions. There is no reason why all the established principles of Convention law in relation to partial exemptions should not also apply to automatic exemptions.
The Court found the Court of Appeal further erred by requiring the parents’ apprehensions to be ‘objectively made out’ and that they ‘would have been realised in practice’. Lord Stephens held that reasonable apprehensions on the part of parents are sufficient:
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, even in circumstances where there is no requirement ‘as such’ to disclose their religious or philosophical views.
The Court held there was ample evidence, indeed the only finding available, to support the trial judge’s factual conclusion that the parents’ concerns were valid. JR87 would have been the only child withdrawn; two previous withdrawals had been short-lived; the school environment was small; and there were no pre-existing alternative arrangements, necessitating burdensome negotiations prior to any withdrawal.
The Department’s positive duties
The Court noted the Department’s conspicuous failure to inspect or monitor religious education or collective worship in schools, observing that under the principles in Folgerø, competent authorities have a positive duty to take the utmost care to ensure parents’ convictions are not disregarded. Lord Stephens stated:
the competent authorities have a duty to take the utmost care to see to it that parents’ religious and philosophical convictions are not disregarded at this level by carelessness, lack of judgment or misplaced proselytism.
The cross-appeal: JR87’s separate rights
Drawing on Papageorgiou v Greece and Perovy v Russia, the Court held that both parents and children hold rights under A2P1 read with Article 9 ECHR. The first sentence of A2P1, read in light of the second sentence and Article 9, guarantees schoolchildren the right to education in a form which respects their right to believe or not to believe. The judge was correct to find a breach in relation to both JR87 and G.
Practical Significance
This decision confirms that in Northern Ireland (and by implication across the United Kingdom), a statutory right of parental withdrawal from religious education and collective worship does not necessarily cure a failure to deliver religious education in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner. Where exercising that right is capable of placing an undue burden on parents — through risks of stigmatisation, exposure of private convictions, or conflict with schools — Convention rights are rendered theoretical and illusory. The case establishes that no separate finding of a State ‘aim’ of indoctrination is required; conveying religious education in a manner that is not objective, critical, and pluralistic itself constitutes indoctrination for Convention purposes. It also underscores the State’s positive obligation to inspect and monitor religious education to prevent indoctrination, and confirms that children, as well as parents, are rights-holders under A2P1 read with Article 9 ECHR.
Verdict: The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal of JR87 and G, dismissed the Department of Education’s cross-appeal, and reinstated the declaration made by the High Court judge that the teaching of religious education under the core syllabus and the arrangements for collective worship in the school breached the rights of both JR87 and her father under Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR read with Article 9 ECHR.
Source: Application by JR87 and another for Judicial Review (Appellant) [2025] UKSC 40
