Katharine Birbalsingh questions level of legal aid for pupil who challenged prayer ban
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Katharine Birbalsingh has questioned the level of legal aid awarded to a Muslim pupil who lost a court battle over her school’s prayer ban.
Ms Birbalsingh, known as Britain’s strictest head teacher, won a legal challenge brought by the pupil, who claimed the prayer restrictions at Michaela Community School in Brent, north-west London, were discriminatory.
The High Court ruled that the prayer ban was lawful and justified as “a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims” of the school.
Commenting on the judgment, Ms Birbalsingh said: “Can it be right for a family to receive £150,000 of taxpayer-funded legal aid to bring a case like this?”
A spokesman for lawyers supporting the pupil said the legal aid costs were “a fraction” of the sum quoted by Ms Birbalsingh.
Senior Tory MPs also criticised the use of legal aid to fund the pupil’s claim.
‘Legal aid is not there to fund lawfare’
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the MP for North East Somerset, said: “Legal aid is there to protect people who couldn’t otherwise get proper representation for cases that must have a seriousness threshold.
“This is particularly important for people charged with criminal offences and for those involved in civil litigation where they are at risk of some obvious wrong.
“Legal aid is not there to fund politics by legal means, legal aid is not there to fund lawfare. If people want to fight political battles in the courts, they should fund them themselves.”
Sir John Hayes, chairman of the Common Sense Group of backbench Tory MPs, said the legal aid funding for the case was an “outrage”.
Legal aid is the system of public funding used to help meet the costs of legal advice and representation in court.
It is administered by the Legal Aid Agency, part of the Ministry of Justice.
Judicial review cases are typically considered to be in scope of civil legal aid services.
Applications are considered on an individual basis, and cases must be deemed to have the potential to produce a benefit for the individual, a member of the individual’s family or the environment.
The agency will also consider the likelihood of the success of a case and the financial eligibility of the claimant. Ministers do not see legal aid applications and have no power to either approve or block them.
Other controversial cases that have received legal aid include almost £250,000 awarded to Shamima Begum, the former Islamic State bride.
Michaela introduced the prayer ban in March last year after around 30 pupils began praying in the yard.
Lawyers for the school said pupils seen praying outside contributed to a “concerted campaign” on social media over the school’s approach to religion.
The court heard the school was targeted with death threats, abuse, “false” allegations of Islamophobia and a “bomb hoax”.
In a ruling handed down on Tuesday, Mr Justice Linden, said the prayer ritual policy at Michaela did not “interfere” with the freedom of the pupil who brought the case to manifest her religious beliefs.
Following the ruling, Rishi Sunak’s official spokesman said head teachers were “best placed to take decisions on what is permitted in their school on these matters”, including “in relation to whether and how to accommodate prayer”.
Gillian Keegan, the Education Secretary, said: “Today’s judgment backs an outstanding school that is delivering a world-class education to children from all faiths in some of London’s most deprived areas.”
‘A victory against activists trying to subvert public institutions’
Kemi Badenoch, the Equalities minister, said: “This ruling is a victory against activists trying to subvert our public institutions.
“No pupil has the right to impose their views on an entire school community in this way.
“The Equality Act is a shield, not a sword, and teachers must not be threatened into submission.”
The Church of England said it believed school heads were best placed to address issues locally and would “uphold their right to do so”.
Nigel Genders, the church’s chief education officer, said: “This case does not appear to be about banning prayer in schools but relates to day-to-day decisions of a particular school in its own circumstances.
“We agree that heads and governing bodies of individual schools are best placed to address these issues locally and would uphold their right to do so.”
The pupil said in a statement issued by law firm Simpson Millar after the ruling that the school was “very well run and generally very good at managing everything” but felt “that I did the right thing in seeking to challenge the ban”.
Her mother said: “My daughter’s impassioned stance compelled me to support her and I stand firm in that decision.
“Her courage in pursuing this matter fills me with pride and I’m confident she’s gained invaluable lessons from the experience.”
Dan Rosenberg, a lawyer at Simpson Millar who represented the pupil, said: “Obviously, the result was not a result that our client wanted but given the strength of her feelings, she did not feel it was right to merely accept the situation without seeking to challenge it.
“I respect our client’s mother for supporting her in this.”
