Read judgment in full

The law lords today overturned a court ruling that a teenager's human rights were violated when she was banned from wearing full-length Islamic dress at school.

In a ruling which many teachers will see as reaffirming the authority of schools and headteachers, the House of Lords allowed an appeal by Denbigh High School in Luton, Bedfordshire.

Lord Bingham said the school was fully justified in acting as it did when it sent Shabina Begum, then 14, home for refusing to adhere to the school uniform policy.

Shabina had previously worn the shalwar kameez - trousers and tunic - but told the school in September 2002 that her religion required her to wear the head-to-toe jilbab.

Announcing the decision of a panel of five law lords, Lord Bingham said of the school: "It had taken immense pains to devise a uniform policy which respected Muslim beliefs but did so in an inclusive, unthreatening and uncompetitive way.

"The rules laid down were as far from being mindless as uniform rules could ever be. The school had enjoyed a period of harmony and success to which the uniform policy was thought to contribute."

Lord Bingham said that the rules were acceptable to mainstream Muslim opinion and it was was feared that acceding to Shabina’s request would or might have significant adverse repercussions.

"It would, in my opinion, be irresponsible for any court, lacking the experience, background and detailed knowledge of the headteacher, staff and governors, to overrule their judgment on a matter as sensitive as this," said Lord Bingham.

"The power of decision has been given to them for the compelling reason that they are best placed to exercise it, and I see no reason to disturb their decision."

Shabina, now 17, took the school’s headteacher and governors to court for denying her the "right to education and to manifest her religious beliefs" under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.

After being sent home for wearing the jilbab in September 2002, Shabina never returned to the school and later enrolled at another school where the jilbab was permitted, although not before missing two years of schooling.

The law lords had heard that 75 per cent of pupils at Denbigh High were Muslim and, at the time Shabina was admitted, the headteacher was Muslim. The faith was represented on the parent teacher association and governing body.

To try to accommodate all faiths, the school adopted the shalwar kameez, a garment worn by many faiths on the Indian sub-continent. According to the school’s lawyers, among Shabina’s objections was that the kameez was worn by "disbelieving women".

But Shabina’s counsel, Cherie Booth, QC, said at her appeal that that was incorrect. Her objection was that the kameez was no longer suitable for her because she had reached sexual maturity and it did not sufficiently protect her modesty.

Miss Begum told Sky News outside the House of Lords that the decision was "very upsetting" but she hoped that she had given others the chance to stand up for their religious beliefs.

Asked if she would take the case further through an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, she replied: "I'm doing my A levels at the moment, but where I go, we're not sure yet. We're not sure if will take it to the European Court or not."

She added: "I think I have made my point at this stage. I have made it very clear and I hope that it encourages others to speak out."

Jack Rabinowicz, a leading education lawyer at Teacher Stern Selby, said that the law lords' decision would strengthen the hand of schools and local authorities in determining their own policies.

"Whilst I don't think the House of Lords' judgment can be seen as saying schools can ignore individual concerns, they do have an obligation to manage in the best interests of the community as a whole. All I think this does is say that if you set a fair policy and the child goes beyond it, even for understandable reasons, the school [has a right to act]," he said.

Schools' authority would have been severely weakened if the Court of Appeal's ruling had been upheld, Mr Rabinowicz said.

"The argument was that it would have been chaos. You couldn't have had a uniform uniform policy. Everyone would've been entitled to say, 'I have a reason why I can't wear that'. Any child who said they had a good-standing religious belief - if a Rastafarian child wants to wear his hair in a particular way - you effectively couldn't touch them for it.

"Most people were surprised by the Court of Appeal's decision, to be honest. [Today's ruling] restores what people had expected the position to be."

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• 'Kelvin MacKenzie ate my paper'
• Cold, dark journeys of the lone wolf
• It’s too easy to blame dads