| SPOTLIGHT |
The High Court has quashed the decision of Kent County Council to refuse to consider a humanist for membership of Group A of its Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education (SACRE).
Pursuant to section 390(4)(a) of the Education Act 1996 ('the 1996 Act'), Group A is required to be 'a group of persons to represent such Christian denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions as, in the opinion of the authority, will appropriately reflect the principal religious traditions in the area.
The council refused to appoint the claimant, Steve Bowen, because, as a humanist, he did not represent “a religion or a denomination of a religion” for the purposes of section 390(4)(a).
The High Court judge concluded that the decision made by the council was unlawful.
In Bowen, R (On the Application Of) v Kent County Council [2023] EWHC, Mr Justice Constable said that Bowen subscribes to “a worldview based on logic, rationality, science, education, and mutual respect”.
Bowen had sought to be appointed to join Group A of the SACRE of Kent County Council. However, the council considered that it “did not have the power to appoint Mr Bowen to Group A and that it would have been unlawful for it to do so”, said Mr Justice Constable.
The claimant challenged Kent’s decision on the basis that it was discriminatory, and so in breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Mr Justice Constable said: “As such, he contends that pursuant to section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, section 390(4)(a) must be read in such a way as to avoid the breach.”
He continued: “It is accepted by David Wolfe KC, Simpson Millar LLP, on behalf of Mr Bowen, that on any normal use of language, humanism is not a 'religion' or a 'denomination of a religion'. […] However, it is argued that the words 'other religions' can and should be, pursuant to section 3 of the HRA 1998, construed as incorporating the duty of care of neutrality recognised by the ECHR, in much the same way that Warby J construed the phrase 'religious education' in R (Fox) v Education Secretary [2016] PTSR 405.”
The High Court Judge outlined four “fundamental issues” to consider:
Mr Justice Constable noted that Article 14 provides that "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
In his consideration of the case, Mr Justice Constable found that: “The discriminatory nature of section 390(4) [of the Education Act 1996] as interpreted by KCC is manifestly without reasonable foundation and not justifiable. Indeed, it is antithetical to what the provisions can sensibly be considered as aiming to achieve, when that aim is now to be realised in light of the fact that ‘religious education’ must include some teaching of non-religious beliefs, as confirmed in Fox.”
He added: “As such, section 390(4)(a) as construed by KCC does involve a breach of Article 14 of ECHR.”
The High Court judge concluded that Kent's decision prohibiting the claimant from being included as a Humanist representative was unlawful. He said at paragraph 70: “It is in my view clearly discriminatory to exclude someone from SACRE Group A solely by reference to the fact that their belief, whilst appropriate to be included within the agreed syllabus for religious education, is a non-religious, rather than a religious, belief”.
Following his order to quash Kent's decision, the High Court judge commented that it “does not follow that any and every non-religious belief would need to be treated similarly”.
He said: “It may be legitimate to conclude that a particular belief (religious or non-religious) does not attain the requisite level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance to attract protection.
“[…] There remains considerable discretion for the local authority when determining who to appoint pursuant to section 390(6) to ensure consistency with the efficient discharge of the group's functions.”
Commenting on the case, Dan Rosenberg of Simpson Millar LLP, who represented Steve Bowen, said: “This is a very positive decision. The Court has agreed with our client’s point, in that to read the legislation compatibly with the Human Rights Act, membership of Group A of a SACRE can extend to those with non-religious worldviews such as humanism, and membership of that group is not just limited to those representing religions.
“Given non-religious worldviews such as humanism are now part of the RE curriculum, children can only benefit from having someone who holds those views being able to add their expertise and experience in the room when discussions are had about how to teach it.”
Following what it described as a “landmark judgment”, Humanists UK have called on the Government to issue new guidance for all SACREs.
The organisation said: “The Court has now made it clear that there are no barriers to Religious Education being fully inclusive of humanism, nor to humanists being represented on SACREs.”
Humanists UK noted that the private member’s Education (Non-religious Philosophical Convictions) Bill, currently in the House of Lords, if passed, “would reflect in statute law the accepted position in respect of these two points.”
Lottie Winson
