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

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

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott strengthens social housing development offering with senior London appointment

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers strengthens Birmingham real estate team with partner hire

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan expands private client and regulatory teams with new legal directors

NEWS
A mood of cautious optimism has enveloped the criminal law sector following indications the Prime Minister may abandon planned jury reforms
Helping to source the services and providers you need
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
back-to-top-scroll