The provision of Christian religious education in Northern Ireland schools does not comply with human rights standards and is unlawful, the UK Supreme Court has ruled.
In a landmark judgment, the court upheld an appeal brought by a pupil at a Belfast school and her father and reinstated an earlier court ruling that the teaching of RE and collective worship breaches human rights as it does not approach the subject in an "objective, critical and pluralist manner".
The pupil, known as JR87, was at a controlled primary school in Belfast in 2019 when, as part of the curriculum, she took part in non-denominational Christian religious education and collective worship.
Her 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.
In a reply, the school confirmed its provision of religious education and collective worship was "Bible-based" and that it followed the core syllabus for education.
JR87 and her father, known as G, challenged the legality of this and sought judicial review against the Department of Education.
Their lawyers argued the religious education and collective worship in the school contravened their human rights requiring the state to provide education to "respect the right of parents to ensure such education is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions".
The High Court in Belfast found in favour of the family in 2022 and said the Christian RE taught and collective worship in schools in Northern Ireland is unlawful.
However, this was overturned by the Court of Appeal, so the family took their case to the Supreme Court.
In a unanimous judgment delivered this morning, the UK's highest court allowed the appeal brought by JR87 and G and dismissed a cross-appeal brought by the department.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Ben Stephens said: "The Court of Appeal was wrong in its application of established principles of ECHR law and should not have departed from the (High Court) judge's finding that the parents had valid concerns in relation to withdrawing JR87 from religious education and collective worship.
"Furthermore, the Court of Appeal fell into error in making a distinction between indoctrination and the state conveying information or knowledge in a manner which was not objective, critical, and pluralistic.
"The concepts are two sides of the same coin: conveying knowledge in a manner that is not objective, critical, and pluralistic amounts to pursuing the aim of indoctrination."
Justice Stephens also said the Court of Appeal ought to have found that having to withdraw JR87 from religious education was "capable of placing an undue burden" on her parents.
Responding to the judgment, Darragh Mackin of Phoenix Law, solicitor for JR87 and her father, said it was a "watershed moment" for educational rights.
He said: "The Supreme Court has confirmed that all children are entitled to an education that respects their freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
"The judgment makes clear that the State cannot rely on withdrawal mechanisms to justify religious instruction.
"Schools must not place children in the impossible position of being singled out or stigmatised simply because their families do not share the religious worldview embedded in the curriculum."
