R (E) v Governing Body of JFS: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:09, 12 February 2010

R(E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15 is a United Kingdom discrimination case, concerning the Jewish Free School's policy of denying entry to people of a different religion. The United Kingdom Supreme Court held by a majority of seven to two that the school had discriminated against pupils, including the claimant, "E", on the basis of race under the Race Relations Act 1976. Five of their Lordships held that the school had directly discriminated against applicant pupils and two or their Lordships held that the school was indirectly discriminating on grounds of race. The case was the first processed at the newly-established Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Background

In October 2006, a Jewish father made enquiries with the United Synagogue as to whether his son, born to a mother who had been converted to Judaism under the auspices of the Masorti movement, could convert under Orthodox auspices for entry to JFS in September 2007. He was advised the process could take several years and that such applications to JFS are very rarely successful given that the school is highly oversubscribed. He applied for his son but did not declare to the school's admissions board the mother's conversion history.

By April 2007, he had not supplied JFS with the requested information, whereupon the school advised him that, being oversubscribed that year, it was unlikely his son could be offered a place. He thereupon unsuccessfully appealed for reconsideration of his application.

In July 2008, the father sought to prosecute JFS on the grounds of alleged racial discrimination, but High Court judge, Mr Justice Munby, ruled contrariwise, holding JFS' selection criteria were not intrinsically different from Christian or Islamic faith schools and their being declared illegal could adversely affect "the admission arrangements in a very large number of faith schools of many different faiths and denominations".

Judgment

Lord Phillips, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke and Lord Kerr held that the school had directly discriminated on grounds of race.

Lord Hope and Lord Walker held there had been indirect discrimination on grounds of race.

Lord Rodger and Lord Brown dissented.

External links

Mark Hill, 'What the JFS ruling meant' (21.12.2009) The Guardian

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==Background==
-In October 2006, a Jewish father made enquiries with the United Synagogue as to whether his son, born to a mother who had been converted to Judaism under the auspices of the Masorti[8]  movement, could convert under Orthodox auspices for entry to JFS in September 2007. He was advised the process could take several years and that such applications to JFS are very rarely successful given that the school is highly oversubscribed. He applied for his son but did not declare to the school's admissions board the mother's conversion history.
+In October 2006, a Jewish father made enquiries with the United Synagogue as to whether his son, born to a mother who had been converted to Judaism under the auspices of the Masorti  movement, could convert under Orthodox auspices for entry to JFS in September 2007. He was advised the process could take several years and that such applications to JFS are very rarely successful given that the school is highly oversubscribed. He applied for his son but did not declare to the school's admissions board the mother's conversion history.
-By April 2007, he had not supplied JFS with the requested information, whereupon the school advised him that, being oversubscribed that year, it was unlikely his son could be offered a place. He thereupon unsuccessfully appealed for reconsideration of his application.[9]
+By April 2007, he had not supplied JFS with the requested information, whereupon the school advised him that, being oversubscribed that year, it was unlikely his son could be offered a place. He thereupon unsuccessfully appealed for reconsideration of his application.
-In July 2008, the father sought to prosecute JFS on the grounds of alleged racial discrimination, but High Court judge, Mr Justice Munby, ruled contrariwise, holding JFS' selection criteria were not intrinsically different from Christian or Islamic faith schools and their being declared illegal could adversely affect "the admission arrangements in a very large number of faith schools of many different faiths and denominations".[10]
+In July 2008, the father sought to prosecute JFS on the grounds of alleged racial discrimination, but High Court judge, Mr Justice Munby, ruled contrariwise, holding JFS' selection criteria were not intrinsically different from Christian or Islamic faith schools and their being declared illegal could adversely affect "the admission arrangements in a very large number of faith schools of many different faiths and denominations".
 ==Judgment==