UK Supreme Court - Judgment in JR87 - Religious education in Northern Ireland

The Supreme Court of the UK has given judgment in a case from Northern Ireland - An application by JR87 and another for Judicial Review

The decision concerns Article 9 of the ECHR (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 2 od Protocol 1 to the ECHR. 

  

 

Article 9(1) provides for the right to freedom of religion. Article 9(2) permits the State to impose limitations on freedom to manifest religion or beliefs but ONLY where necessary for one of the stated purposes - e.g. to protect public order.#

Protocol 1 is concerned with Education and Article 2 guarantees an individual the right to education. The
second sentence of Article 2 guarantees the right of parents to have their children educated in conformity with their religious and philosophical convictions.

Religious Education in Northern Ireland:

Religious education is compulsory in grant-aided schools in Northern Ireland under Article 21(1) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.

The religious education must include ‘religious education in accordance with any core syllabus specified under article 11 of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.

The core syllabus is prepared by a drafting group consisting only of representatives of the ‘four main churches’: the Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and the Methodist Church in Ireland. 

Facts:

JR87 attended a controlled primary school in Belfast.  

As part of the curriculum she took part in non-denominational Christian religious education and collective worship. 

JR87’s parents did not wish her to be taught that Christianity was an absolute truth. 

In May 2019, the parents wrote a letter to the school voicing concerns that their daughter’s education did not appear to conform with their own religious and philosophical convictions. 

They asked about the inspection mechanisms in place to ensure that children were receiving a balanced religious education. 

In a reply dated 21 June 2019, the school confirmed that its provision of religious education and collective worship was “Bible-based”, that it followed the core syllabus for education, and that it complied with the requirements of the legislation and the core syllabus at an age-appropriate level. 

JR87’s father “G”, the second appellant, challenged the legality of the religious education and collective worship and sought judicial review against the respondent, the Department of Education. 

The appellants argued that the religious education and collective worship in the school contravened their rights under A2P1, which requires the State providing education to “respect the right of parents to ensure such education is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”, read with Article 9 ECHR, which guarantees everyone the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. 

The High Court found that the religious education and collective worship was in breach of both appellants’ rights under A2P1 read with Article 9 ECHR.  Colton J held that the religious education and worship following the core syllabus was not conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner and that this infringed human rights laws despite a right to opt out because that placed an undue burden on parents and ran the risk of stigmatising their children

The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent’s appeal.  Treacy LJ accepted that religious education and worship had not been conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner but held that the right to opt out meant that there was no breach of human rights law.  The State was not pursuing the forbidden aim of indoctrination and the fears of the burden and stigma would not have been realised in practice.

The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal and dismissed the Department of Education's cross appeal.

Some of the court's reasoning  turns on the particular legal provisions in Northern Ireland. However, of wider interest, is whether a parental opt out provides an answer to a human rights breach.   The Supreme Court held that teaching that is not objective, critical and pluralistic will breach human rights laws even if there is a right to opt out and even where that right has not been exercised. 

The judgment may bring about a review across the UK of religious teaching in schools. That remains to be seen.

A more detailed analysis of the case may be seen at Law and Religion 20 November 2025.

Guide on Article 2 Protocol 1 

Note 1: Article 2 Protocol 1 applies to all subjects and not only religious instruction - e.g. Sexual
education and ethics are within the scope of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 

Note 2:  The National Curriculum for England makes RE compulsory in schools up to the age of 18. Parents can ask to withdraw their child from parts or all of the lessons. Local councils are responsible for deciding the RE syllabus, but faith schools and academies can set their own.

Note 3: Wales has its own curriculum and teaches Religion, Values and Ethics.

Note 4: For Scotland see HERE

Links 

UK Human Rights Blog 21 November 2025