Court finds direct discrimination in school’s Prevent referral of Muslim boy

Image of Fred Holker

Cloisters’ Fred Holker successfully represented the Claimant who, at the age of 13, was the subject of a referral labelled for the Government's counter-terrorism ‘Prevent’ scheme by a teacher following a playground incident. Fred acted for the Claimant pro bono at trial in the County Court against the education trust, securing findings of direct religion discrimination contrary to ss 10 and 13 Equality Act 2010. The successful claim had been pleaded by Cloisters’ Ameer Ismail, also on a pro bono basis. 

The Claimant was accused of playground misbehaviour in 2021 which led teachers to form a concern of possible Islamist radicalisation. The Court analysed the manner in which the referral was made, concluding that the teacher had cast the Claimant in terms suffused with religious and violent overtones that went beyond the facts established by an internal investigation. The Court found that the language used in the referral was a powerful indicator that the teacher’s subconscious thought processes were influenced by his knowledge that the boy was a practising Muslim. 

Applying the burden of proof provisions at s136 EqA 2010 and Igen Ltd v Wong [2005] IRLR 258, DJ Beecham held that the Trust was unable to provide cogent evidence that the school’s treatment of the Claimant was in no sense whatsoever related to his religion. The Court accepted the Claimant’s argument that a discriminator’s motivation is irrelevant: even where a decision-maker believes themselves to be acting in the interests of the individual concerned, a court is bound to make a finding of direct discrimination if the causal link between less favourable treatment and protected characteristic is made out (see Amnesty International v Ahmed [2009] UKEAT/0447/08, which also featured representation from Cloisters). 

This decision highlights the fault line between the ‘Prevent duty’ and an individual’s rights under the Equality Act. It demonstrates that while institutions must be free to act on genuine concerns, they will risk crossing into unlawful discrimination where decision-making rests on stereotyping, discriminatory taint or subconscious bias. 

Fred Holker also secured a pro bono costs order and litigant-in-person costs for his client, together with an injury to feelings award. He was instructed through Advocate.