The Weekly Round-up: School Prayer Ban and Further Debates on Rwanda Bill
22 April 2024
In UK news
The House of Lords has once again delayed the passage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill. The Bill returned to the House of Lords for consideration of Commons amendments in what’s known as parliamentary “ping-pong” after the House of Commons rejected a series of safeguards the House of Lords added into the Bill. The House of Lords voted to to reinstate clauses removed by the Commons regarding:
- Exemption for allies of the UK overseas, such as Afghan service veterans
- Ensuring that Rwanda is only considered a safe country when the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda Treaty are fully implemented and adhered to in practice.
The Bill is going back to the House of Commons this week and may soon come into law despite the disputes between the Commons and the Lords.
In international news
The US Supreme Court has announced that it will not hear the case of Mckesson v Doe. This was an appeal against a lower court decision which held that a protest organiser could be held liable in tort and face steep financial consequences if a single participant at a mass protest commits an illegal act. The case arises out of a Baton Rouge protest following a police shooting. DeRay Mckesson, one of the organisers of the protest, was sued by a police officer, identified only as John Doe, who was seriously injured when a participant in the protest threw a rock at him. The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case means that the lower court’s decision remains good law in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, and has been criticised for having a stifling effect on protest rights.
In the courts
The High Court held that Michaela Community Schools Trust’s decision to ban ritual prayer practices was lawful. The challenge was brought by a Muslim student at the school who wished to be permitted to pray for five minutes during the lunchtime break. The court rejected arguments that the ban was a breach of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) and indirect religious discrimination against the school’s Muslim students. The High Court held that there was no interference with the claimant’s Article 9 rights as the claimant impliedly consented when she enrolled at the school, which is a secular school, that she would be subject to restrictions on her ability to manifest her religion and she would be able to “make up” for missed prayers when she got home (Qada prayers). Alternatively, the prayer ban was a proportionate means of promoting social cohesion at the school and preventing students from being pressured into participating in the prayers.
