Britain’s strictest headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh has furiously questioned the level of legal aid given to a Muslim pupil who lost a court battle over her school’s prayer ban.
Birbalsingh won the legal dispute after a student claimed prayer restrictions at Michaela Community School in Brent were discriminatory.
The High Court ruled the prayer ban was lawful and justified as “a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims” of the school.
Birbalsingh said: “Can it be right for a family to receive £150,000 of taxpayer-funded legal aid to bring a case like this?”
However, a spokesman for lawyers supporting the pupil claimed legal aid costs represented just a “fraction” of the sum quoted by the headteacher.
The prayer ban was introduced by the North London school last year after around 30 pupils started praying in the yard.
Lawyers representing Michaela argued praying pupils contributed to a “concerted campaign” on social media over the school’s approach to religion.
In a ruling handed down on Tuesday, Mr Justice Linden, said the prayer ritual policy at Michaela did not “interfere” with the freedom of the pupil who brought the case to manifest her religious beliefs.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:
Michaela Community School in North London
GETTY
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman argued head teachers were “best placed to take decisions on what is permitted in their school on these matters”, including “in relation to whether and how to accommodate prayer”.
Education Secretary Gillian Keegan also said: “Today’s judgment backs an outstanding school that is delivering a world-class education to children from all faiths in some of London’s most deprived areas.”
Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch added: “This ruling is a victory against activists trying to subvert our public institutions.
“No pupil has the right to impose their views on an entire school community in this way.
“The Equality Act is a shield, not a sword, and teachers must not be threatened into submission.”
However, the pupil’s mother championed her daughter’s “impassioned” position on the matter.
She said: “My daughter’s impassioned stance compelled me to support her and I stand firm in that decision.
“Her courage in pursuing this matter fills me with pride and I’m confident she’s gained invaluable lessons from the experience.”
Dan Rosenberg, a lawyer at Simpson Millar who represented the pupil, added: “Obviously, the result was not a result that our client wanted but given the strength of her feelings, she did not feel it was right to merely accept the situation without seeking to challenge it.
“I respect our client’s mother for supporting her in this.”
