Religious freedom doesn’t stop at the prison gate

7 June 2011 by

R (Imran Bashir) v. The Independent Adjudicator, HMP Ryehill and the Secretary of State for Justice [2011] EWHC 1108 – read judgment here.

1 Crown Office Row’s John Joliffe appeared for the Secretary of State for Justice in this case. He is not the writer of this post.

The High Court held last week that disciplining a Muslim prisoner for failing to give a urine sample in a drugs test when he was in the midst of a voluntary fast was a breach of his right to manifest his religious beliefs. 

Recent claims or defences on the basis of Article 9, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, have mostly been unsuccessful – see our comments on the Catholic adoption agencies, fostering and Cornish hotel cases, as well as Aidan O’Neill’s feature article. However, in this case His Honour Judge (HHJ) Pelling QC held that the failure to even consider a prisoner’s Article 9 rights meant that the decision to discipline him was fatally flawed.

3-day fast

Mr Bashir is serving a fifteen-year prison sentence. In January last year he, like many prisoners, was required without any prior warning to provide a urine sample for a drugs test, following the Prison Service’s mandatory drug testing (MDT) policy. In his case the test was not random, but because there was reasonable suspicion that he had taken illegal drugs.

However, it transpired that Mr Bashir was on the final day of a three-day voluntary fast, undertaken on the advice of an Imam as spiritual preparation for his Court of Appeal hearing the next day. Having not drunk anything for some time, he unsurprisingly was not able to provide a large enough sample. When he was offered water on several occasions he refused, explaining that he was fasting. As a result he was charged with failing to obey a lawful order. At a hearing before the Independent Adjudicator he was convicted and given an extra 14 days imprisonment as punishment.

The MDT policy makes special provision for Ramadan (and comparable religious festivals that require fasting), allowing drug testing still to be carried out, but very early in the day. The MDT policy states that during Ramadan Muslim prisoners should not be manoeuvred into a position where they have to disobey an order. However, Mr Bashir’s fast was not during Ramadan and not compulsory. It was a voluntary, individual act. The undisputed evidence before the adjudicator from the prison Imam was that Mr Bashir was a devout Muslim, that it was a recognised practice in Islam to engage in an individual, voluntary fast for three days for particular personal reasons, and that ‘if you start to fast you should go straight with it to the end‘. However, the adjudicator held that while the MDT policy made special provision for religious festivals, this was not a religious festival and Mr Bashir therefore had to bear the consequences of his personal decision, which was that he had disobeyed a lawful order.

The challenge

Mr Bashir brought a claim for judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision, on the basis that (1) his conviction was wrong in law on the evidence available (i.e. that the reasons given were insufficient), (2) the finding of guilt was perverse (i.e. that Mr Bashir had clearly not intended to disobey the order) and (3) requiring him to provide a sample when he was fasting for religious reasons was contrary to Article 9.

HHJ Pelling QC rejected the first and second arguments. On the Article 9 issue, though, he held that the adjudicator should have considered three questions:

i) Are the Claimant’s rights under Article 9 engaged?

ii) If so, has there been an interference with those rights?

iii) If so, was the interference one that was both prescribed by law or necessary in the interests of public order, health or morals and proportionate to the end pursued?

The adjudicator did not consider these questions, either expressly or implicitly, and so HHJ Pelling QC held that he had taken a wrong approach and the decision had to be quashed unless it could be demonstrated that a reasonable adjudicator directing himself correctly would have come to the same conclusion.

Applying Article 9 properly

The Secretary of State argued that had the proper approach been taken Article 9 would not be engaged at all, because this was a personal decision not a religious festival. However, the court rejected this – all that is required for Article 9 to be engaged was for there to be an intimate link between the act of fasting and the belief. In this case the link was not challenged before the adjudicator.

The Secretary of State then argued that requiring a urine sample was not an interference with Article 9. He based this on case-law which provides that where a person has voluntarily accepted a situation where his religious beliefs are not accommodated (e.g. by taking on a job where he has to work on Sundays) there is no interference. Mr Bashir, it was argued, had by committing a serious crime voluntarily accepted the restrictions of being in prison. HHJ Pelling QC rejected this analysis, being unconvinced that a choice of employment could be compared to being a prisoner.

Finally, the Secretary of State argued that requiring Mr Bashir to give a urine sample was a proportionate interference. It was clear that preventing drug abuse in prisons was a legitimate aim, but the court was unimpressed with the proportionality evidence provided:

The evidence does not focus on what steps could have been taken in relation to this particular Claimant in his particular circumstances. It does not explain why testing could not have been undertaken after sunset…or why such a test taken in such circumstances would not have been or was likely to have been pointless. The quality of the evidence made available to me leads me to think that the Prison Service has not attempted seriously to assess the impact of making adjustments for Muslims undertaking personal fasting. All this leads me to conclude that disproportionality based on costs and administrative inconvenience has not been demonstrated.

As a result, on the facts, the court held that if proper consideration had been given to Article 9 the adjudicator would not have convicted Mr Bashir.


Despite Mr Bashir’s success, this ruling is probably relatively limited in practical effect. HHJ Pelling QC suggested that there were various factual scenarios which could have meant Mr Bashir’s Article 9 rights were not breached. For example, if there was a system whereby prisoners had to report in advance that they were fasting, which Mr Bashir had failed to comply with. Or if there was evidence that under Islamic law a fast could be broken if necessary (such evidence was actually provided in the judicial review, but it hadn’t been put before the adjudicator so it was irrelevant). Or if there was evidence that a claim to be fasting was false or not a genuine belief -e.g. where a prisoner had been seen eating the day before, or where the Imam had never seen head nor tail of the prisoner before he suddenly declared out of the blue when a drugs test was required that he was a devout Muslim.

Moreover, if it was demonstrated that there were good reasons in a particular case why a drugs test had to be conducted at a certain time, this could make an interference with religious freedom proportionate.

The judge also made it very clear that nothing in his decision had any impact on the lawfulness of the MDT policy generally. Despite this, it might make sense for the Prison Service to amend the policy in the light of this judgment to include reference to voluntary fasts (if shown to be genuine) or to introduce a reporting system such as that referred to in the judgment.

However, this case is a warning more generally to all public authorities that if an issue of religious belief or practice arises in any decision-making process the Article 9 rights of the person involved must be considered. If no consideration is given to religious freedom at all the decision-maker is likely to be on shaky ground, whatever the context.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:




  1. FatherDougal says:

    Again, all these issues come down to whether one believes that punishment is the restriction of liberty per-se or whether it includes taking away further rights and until the issue is resolved these cases will continue. I believe punishment is more than a restriction of liberty per-se.

    Am I right in thinking that the prisoner is able to drink thus provide a urine sample after the breaking of the feast (sunset I think) at the end of every day thus maybe the prison could have simply waited.

  2. John Hirst says:

    “Mr Bashir was on the final day of a three-day voluntary fast, undertaken on the advice of an Imam as spiritual preparation for his Court of Appeal hearing the next day”.

    I am not a religious person, but a lawyer. My priority would be making sure that everything possible was done to ensure a successful CofA outcome. Religion, like TV, would be a distraction. Nevertheless, I recognise that some people do take religion seriously.

    It is accepted that such a thing as a 3 day voluntary fast exists. I am not convinced that in this particular case the stated reason for the fast stands up. The Imam who was said to have provided this advice did not provide evidence for the claimant. Therefore, there is only the claimant’s version of events that he received such advice. Another Imam merely stated that if such a voluntary fast was undertaken it should be seen though to the end.

    It is clear that Article 9 is engaged.

    The claimant is lucky in that when the adjudication verdict was quashed the punishment is also quashed. Had he instead been a lifer he would have already served 14 days Cellular Confinement and the quashed verdict would not be an effective remedy. A claim for £1,400 compensation would have to be entered.

    What has been ignored is the power of an independent adjudicator to award a sentence of 14 days imprisonment for a breach of the Prison Rules. “Disobeys any lawful order” is a “Catch-all” rule. It was designed to be deliberately vague. When the principle of the liberty of the subject is at stake, surely in 2011 it is time such an outdated military model penal code was re-written?

  3. John Dowdle says:

    I spend a lot of time defending judges and human rights in local media but I find this decision indefensible.
    This sets a precedent which can be followed by anyone not wanting to be caught by a drugs test.
    Presumably, any other claimed religionist could claim that they were undertaking a voluntary fast in line with their beliefs, so jews, sikhs, christians, pagans or wiccans could all use the same excuse not to provide a sample.
    What about the Article 9 rights of the non-religious, such as humanists, secularists, atheists, agnostics, rationalists, freethinkers or apatheists? Can they now not legitimately claim the same excuse for not providing a urine sample (though I would be surprised if they would be imprisoned).
    I suppose that the prison authorities should now issue a new guideline to the effect that voluntary fasts will not be acceptable for the purpose of declining to provide a sample.
    One final point: they should remove the imam who so clearly sides with acts of criminality inside a prison.

  4. IAN JOSEPHS says:

    Waterboarding in Guatanamo bay, and refusal to give a urine sample upheld in the UK ! There surely must be a happy medium and once again
    “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. ”
    Thus says the Article and a sensible interpretation would say that once in prison the “limitations prescribed by law” and “the protection of public order” would surely include spot checks for drugs that could NOT be avoided on pseudo religious grounds !
    Don’t knock the Human Rights Act ,blame instead the politically correct judges for perverse interpretation of an article that was clearly intended to allow freedom for everyone to practice the religion of their choice not to avoid spot checks for drugs in prisons.The prisoner was free to continue his fast etc after the few seconds it took for him to pee in a bottle!These judges should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves but they won’t be !

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: