Public Law Advent Calendar #5: In the matter of an application by JR87 and another for Judicial Review

As 2025 draws to a close, Landmark Chambers' public and administrative law experts will be publishing insights into the most significant legal developments of the year. Check back regularly and sign up to our newsletter for the latest instalments in our Public Law Advent Calendar series.

In the matter of an application by JR87 and another for Judicial Review [2025] UKSC 40

On 19 November 2025 the Supreme Court handed down judgment in a case concerning the provision of religious education and collective worship in a controlled grant-aided primary school in Northern Ireland. At issue was the compatibility of that provision with the rights of JR87 and her father under Article 2 of Protocol 1 (“A2P1”), read with Article 9, of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Supreme Court grappled with the question of whether an ability to withdraw one’s child from religious education prevents what would otherwise amount to a breach of A2P1, read with Article 9.

Background

The school which JR87 attended followed the Department of Education’s statutory “core syllabus” developed by representatives of the four main Christian churches in Northern Ireland. The syllabus contains no reference to any other world faiths prior to secondary level and was designed to develop the Christian faith in young people, rather than to simply impart knowledge about Christianity [79].

The central point of JR87’s parents’ objection to the school’s adherence to the “core syllabus” was that pupils are taught to assume that Christianity is an absolute truth [21]. They claimed that by following the core syllabus alone, religious education and collective worship in the school were not conveyed in an objective, critical, and pluralistic manner, as required by Strasbourg.

The Road to the Supreme Court

At first instance, Colton J found that the religious education arrangements at the school JR87 was attending breached both JR87’s and her father’s rights under A2P1, read with Article 9.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s finding that the school’s religious education and collective worship were not delivered in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. However, the Court went on to conclude that the existence of a parental right to withdraw one’s child from such education and/or worship (pursuant to Article 21(5) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986) meant that the State could not be said to be pursuing an “aim” of indoctrination. It followed that there was no breach of Article A2P1, read with Article 9.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed JR87 and her father’s appeal and restored the High Court’s declaration to the effect that the teaching of religious education and collective worship arrangements at the school breached their rights under A2P1 read with Article 9.

It held that an ability to withdraw one’s child is only one factor to be taken into account in assessing Convention compliance and it cannot prevent a breach of A2P1, read with Article 9, if the withdrawal mechanism is capable of placing an undue burden on parents [116]. Undue burdens include stigmatisation of the child, exposure of private life and conflict with school authorities [40] – [46].

The following five errors in the Court of Appeal’s approach were identified at [122] – [128]:

1. Artificial distinction between “indoctrination” and teaching which is not objective, critical and pluralistic
   The Court of Appeal wrongly treated “indoctrination” as something different from teaching that is not objective, critical and pluralistic, even though Strasbourg case law treats them as ‘different sides of the same coin’ [122].
2. Incorrect focus on aim of indoctrination
   The Court of Appeal held that there could be no violation of A2P1 read with Article 9 unless the State was pursuing the forbidden aim of indoctrination. Strasbourg does not require proof of a deliberate aim of indoctrination in order to establish a breach of A2P1 has occurred; simply conveying knowledge in a manner which is not objective, critical, and pluralistic amounts to pursuing the aim of indoctrination [123].
3. Ullah principle not infringed
   The Court of Appeal wrongly held that the High Court infringed the Ullah principle. The Supreme Court found that principles established in Strasbourg jurisprudence dealing with partial exemptions from religious teaching and worship also apply to cases, such as JR87’s, which involve “automatic exemptions” [124] – [126].
4. Unnecessarily requiring proof that undue burdens would be realised in practice
   The Court of Appeal erred in finding that parents must objectively justify apprehensions of undue burdens which stem from exercising the right to withdraw. The Supreme Court held that in considering whether there is capacity for such burdens, reasonable apprehensions to that effect are sufficient. They need not prove that these burdens would be realised in practice
5. Wrongly substituting its own view for the trial judge’s findings of fact
   The Court of Appeal rejected the High Court’s finding that the filing of an exemption would result in stigmatisation in this case. The Supreme Court held there were no exceptional circumstances justifying appellate interference with the trial judge’s factual assessment on this point.

In dismissing the Department’s cross-appeal, the Supreme Court found there was no issue with Colton J being guided by a finding that JR87’s father’s rights had been breached in concluding JR87’s rights had also been breached [137].

Key Takeaways

The main takeaway from the judgment is that teaching only the core syllabus will breach A2P1 read with Article 9 unless it is supplemented with objective, critical and pluralistic teaching, or supported by a right to withdraw that does not unduly burden parents.

While the Supreme Court was not invited to quash the underlying legislation in this case, it acknowledged that its ‘judgment will have immediate practical consequences for the teaching of religious education and the practice of collective worship generally in Northern Ireland’ [1]. Indeed, the Court makes clear that courts will scrutinise educational practice, not merely legislative design.

In terms of future developments, the Court notes at [91] that the Transferors’ Representative Council (comprised of representatives from the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and the Methodist Church in Ireland) seeks a review of the core syllabus to ensure a plurality of faiths are studied from the Foundation Stage. Until the syllabus is revised, it remains to be seen how schools will ensure their teaching and withdrawal mechanisms are A2P1 compliant.

This blog was written by Louise McCormack.