Dinah Rose QC wins Jewish schoolboy appeal
Share
A Jewish school that refused entry to a boy on the grounds that his mother was not recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi has been told to reverse its stance by the Court of Appeal.
A Jewish school that refused entry to a boy on the grounds that his mother was not recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi has been told to reverse its stance by the Court of Appeal.
Blackstone Chambers’ Dinah Rose QC represented E, the father of a 12-year-old boy known as M, in his attempt to have his son admitted to the Brent-based JFS school.
The school rejected E’s admission because his mother’s conversion to Judaism was not recognised by the Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks.
The judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications for other Jewish schools who accept students on the basis of their ethnic origins regardless of whether they practise the faith.
The Court of Appeal panel of three included Lord Justice Sedley, Lady Justice Smith and Lord Justice Rimer. It ruled: “The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or by conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act 1976. If the discrimination is direct, as we consider it is, it cannot be justified.”
It added: “No faith school is immune from the prohibition on race discrimination.”
Bindmans partner John Halford, who instructed Rose, said: “We have never sought to interfere with the right of orthodox Jews to define for their own religious purposes whom they do or do not recognise as Jewish.
“However, it is unlawful for a child’s ethnic origins to be used as the criterion for entry to a school. Such a practice is even more unacceptable in the case of a comprehensive school funded by the taxpayer.”
While the school has contravened the Race Relations Act, the ruling will not necessarily mean that it must allow M to start school in September. This decision is thought to be at the discretion of the school governors.
Stone King Sewell partner Richard Gold instructed 11KBW’s Peter Oldham to represent the governing body of JFS and the admissions panel.
Treasury Solicitor Natalie Cohen instructed Matrix Chambers’ Tom Lindon QC for the Secretary of State for Education. Clive Lewis QC of 11KBW was also instructed by the Treasury Solicitor to act for the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. Both Lewis and Lindon represented interested parties.
Farrer & Co partner Anne-Marie Piper instructed David Pannick QC of Blackstone Chambers to act for intervener the United Synagogue.
Also acting as an intervener on behalf of the British Humanist Association was Matrix Chambers’ David Wolfe instructed by Leigh Day & Co partner Richard Stein.
Readers' comments (8)
Anonymous | 26-Jun-2009 11:42 am
Well done to Dinah Rose QC - “No faith school is immune from the prohibition on race discrimination” is a great statement but I know from bitter experience of trying to get my sons into JFS that the school is adept at implementing disciminatory policies and that position is not going to change whether we like it or not!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rachel | 26-Jun-2009 3:36 pm
Why are parents so keen to send their children to a school so "adept at implementing discriminatory policies"? Is this a weird form of nimby-ism - 'so long as the discrimination doesn't affect me, I don't mind'?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
earnest | 28-Jun-2009 7:43 pm
Dinah, well done. I've read that JFS is going to seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords on this issue. Let's just remember this is a school funded by the taxpayer. Why is tax payers money being spent to deprive a boy of 11 from a state funded faith education?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4-Jul-2009 10:32 pm
Yes, well done. I am not a lawyer but feel that the United Synagogue's Beth-Din have found reasons for refusing many others who had good claims to be admitted to JFS.
There is a sense of justice to this result and for that the judges are also to be congratulated. Its a pity the Chief Rabbi is getting hysterical in his response to this decision. A bit of humility and humaness in understanding why this decision was reached would not go amiss.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Jul-2009 10:07 am
this is a bad judgment which will be overturned on appeal. What right does the Court of Appeal have to determine who is and who isn't Jewish? The fact is that these children are not Orthodox Jews.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 6-Jul-2009 8:40 pm
Yes, well done. I am not a lawyer but feel that the United Synagogue's Beth-Din have found reasons for refusing many others who had good claims to be admitted to JFS.
There is a sense of justice to this result and for that the judges are also to be congratulated. Its a pity the Chief Rabbi is getting hysterical in his response to this decision. A bit of humility and humaness in understanding why this decision was reached would not go amiss.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Jul-2009 11:26 am
Surely the test of "jewishness" should be whether one practises the religion, rather than their descent.
Be mindful that many people are born of Catholic/Islamic/Protestant parents but are not religious or would define themselves as agnostic or aetheist. But whether one practises is a matter of choice AND faith.
This is a child who should be given the opportunity for a faith based education. I can't believe JFS are acting so pathetically. They should be proud of each child who has faith.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29-Oct-2009 7:00 pm
Clearly the Appeals ruling is mistaken. If faith schools are legitimate, they are entitled to decide who constitutes a member of that faith. There is no racial discrimination involved. The orthodox Jewish requirements re conversion are religious. They do not determine who is an orthodox Jew, as distinct to some other kind. They determine what is seen to be a member of the Jewish faith, per se. This faith, as others, have a right to determine this by its own inner axioms. There is no discrimination- ethnically- involved in this. The whole conceptual basis of the Appeal's decision is mistaken. I hope that the 9 justice Supreme Court panel will clarify what badly needs clarifying to unravel the conceptual muddle of the Appeal's decision.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment