Public Law - Human Rights Judicial Review – Exam Question 2021
The (fictitious) School Uniform Act 2020 empowers head teachers to select a uniform policy
‘appropriate for school activities. Moreover, the Act states that any changes to uniform policies
should take into account the impact of the changes on minority groups and be preceded by
‘meaningful consultation with students and their parents’. In April 2021, a new uniform policy
was issued at Castleton High School, a state-funded school, following an internal school
governors meeting, but without holding any consultation with students and their parents. The
alleged aims of the new uniform policy are to protect safety and hygiene, enhance the feeling of
security and improve the interaction between staff and students, but also amongst students
themselves. Amal is a Muslim student at Castleton High. Recently, Amal has chosen to wear the
niqab which fully covers her face. The newly implemented uniform policy prohibits the covering
of the face on grounds that it inhibits learning and the teachers’ ability to communicate with
students. Maria, her best friend, also studies at Castleton High and is Christian Orthodox. She
has chosen to wear a cross around her neck, something that is also prohibited by the new uniform
policy in certain classes, namely PE and science, for reasons of safety and hygiene. Despite a
promise to meet and discuss their options, Amal is expelled from the school for failing to comply
with the new uniform policy. The school has suggested a number of alternative schools that
accept the niqab but none of them are in Amal’s catchment area. Maria, on the other hand, is
unable to participate in PE and science, something that is bound to have a negative impact on her
academic performance.
Advise Amal and Maria about the options which are available to them under judicial review,
discussing both relevant procedures and grounds of challenge.
Stage One: Preliminary Issues:
In the event that Amal and Maria choose to move forward with this challenge against the
decision of Castleton High School the Pre-action protocol must be followed. (Time Limits)
There is no indication that the parties have delayed submitting their claim in the courts, however
a delayed (Rule 54(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules) claim will negatively affect Amal and Maria
in their claim. (Justiciability) The matter at hand does not pertain to legal issues which would be
impermissible for the courts to act on. The question at hand therefore is one which the courts
may exercise its judicial authority over.
(Party subject for a claim for JR) The case at hand concerns a party whose functions are
generally public in nature, however, the particular act in question is private (s.6(3)(b) and (5)
HRA). Not only is the Castleton High School state funded, but they also are subject to
legislation under the School Uniform Act 2020.
(Arguable human rights violations under HRA) The HRA 1998 Article 9 provides:
“Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
The (fictitious) School Uniform Act 2020 empowers head teachers to select a uniform policy
‘appropriate for school activities. Moreover, the Act states that any changes to uniform policies
should take into account the impact of the changes on minority groups and be preceded by
‘meaningful consultation with students and their parents’. In April 2021, a new uniform policy
was issued at Castleton High School, a state-funded school, following an internal school
governors meeting, but without holding any consultation with students and their parents. The
alleged aims of the new uniform policy are to protect safety and hygiene, enhance the feeling of
security and improve the interaction between staff and students, but also amongst students
themselves. Amal is a Muslim student at Castleton High. Recently, Amal has chosen to wear the
niqab which fully covers her face. The newly implemented uniform policy prohibits the covering
of the face on grounds that it inhibits learning and the teachers’ ability to communicate with
students. Maria, her best friend, also studies at Castleton High and is Christian Orthodox. She
has chosen to wear a cross around her neck, something that is also prohibited by the new uniform
policy in certain classes, namely PE and science, for reasons of safety and hygiene. Despite a
promise to meet and discuss their options, Amal is expelled from the school for failing to comply
with the new uniform policy. The school has suggested a number of alternative schools that
accept the niqab but none of them are in Amal’s catchment area. Maria, on the other hand, is
unable to participate in PE and science, something that is bound to have a negative impact on her
academic performance.
Advise Amal and Maria about the options which are available to them under judicial review,
discussing both relevant procedures and grounds of challenge.
Stage One: Preliminary Issues:
In the event that Amal and Maria choose to move forward with this challenge against the
decision of Castleton High School the Pre-action protocol must be followed. (Time Limits)
There is no indication that the parties have delayed submitting their claim in the courts, however
a delayed (Rule 54(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules) claim will negatively affect Amal and Maria
in their claim. (Justiciability) The matter at hand does not pertain to legal issues which would be
impermissible for the courts to act on. The question at hand therefore is one which the courts
may exercise its judicial authority over.
(Party subject for a claim for JR) The case at hand concerns a party whose functions are
generally public in nature, however, the particular act in question is private (s.6(3)(b) and (5)
HRA). Not only is the Castleton High School state funded, but they also are subject to
legislation under the School Uniform Act 2020.
(Arguable human rights violations under HRA) The HRA 1998 Article 9 provides:
“Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
