header-logo header-logo

14 January 2010 / Craig Rose
Issue: 7400 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights
printer mail-detail

School of thought

The Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15, [2009] All ER (D) 163 (Dec) provides a fine example of the law of unintended consequences.

The Supreme Court’s decision in R (on the application of E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15, [2009] All ER (D) 163 (Dec) provides a fine example of the law of unintended consequences.

When in 1976 the newly enacted Race Relations Act prohibited, for purposes specified in the Act, discrimination on “racial grounds” (s 1(1)) and provided that such grounds included “ethnic…origins” (s 3(1)), nobody could have imagined that those words would be held, 33 years later, to preclude Jewish schools from applying, in their admission policies, Orthodox Judaism’s age-old test for determining whether a child is Jewish. Yet that is precisely what the majority of the Supreme Court have decided.

The result produces an anomaly, and a discriminatory one at that. Like all other faith schools, Jewish schools remain free to give preference in their admission policies to members of the faith. Unlike all other faith

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll