Date: March 2005

UK's highest court rejects challenge to school corporal punishment ban

In a unanimous judgment issued on 24 February 2005, the House of Lords rejected the attempt by a group of parents and teachers to overturn the abolition of corporal punishment in private schools. The claimants were head teachers, teachers and parents of children at four independent schools. The schools are the Christian Fellowship School at Edge Hill, Liverpool, Bradford Christian School at Idle, Bradford, Cornerstone School at Epsom, Surrey, and King's School at Eastleigh, Hampshire.

In the leading judgment, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead stated that the claimants' beliefs regarding the use of corporal punishment by both parents and teachers "are based on their interpretation of certain passages in the Bible. For instance, 'He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him': Proverbs 13:24. They say the use of 'loving corporal correction' in the upbringing of children is an essential of their faith. They believe these biblical sources justify, and require, their practices".

He noted that in practice "the corporal punishment of boys takes the form of administering a thin, broad flat 'paddle' to both buttocks simultaneously in a firm controlled manner. Girls may be strapped upon the hand. The child is then comforted by a member of the staff and encouraged to pray. The child is given time to compose himself before returning to class".

Lord Nicholls concluded that he was in no doubt that the "interference" posed by abolition of all school corporal punishment with the claimants' freedom to manifest their beliefs was, within the meaning of article 9 of the European Human Rights Convention, "necessary in a democratic society ... for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".

"The statutory ban pursues a legitimate aim: children are vulnerable, and the aim of the legislation is to protect them and promote their wellbeing. Corporal punishment involves deliberately inflicting physical violence. The legislation is intended to protect children against the distress, pain and other harmful effects this infliction of physical violence may cause. That corporal punishment may have these harmful effects is self-evident. Further, the means chosen to achieve this aim are appropriate and not disproportionate in their adverse impact on parents who believe that carefully-controlled administration of corporal punishment to a mild degree can be beneficial...

"The legislature was entitled to take the view that, overall and balancing the conflicting considerations, all corporal punishment of children at school is undesirable and unnecessary and that other, non-violent means of discipline are available and preferable. On this Parliament was entitled, if it saw fit, to lead and guide public opinion. Parliament was further entitled to take the view that a universal ban was the appropriate way to achieve the desired end.

"Parliament was entitled to decide that, contrary to the claimants' submissions, a universal ban is preferable to a selective ban which exempts schools where the parents or teachers have an ideological belief in the efficacy and desirability of a mild degree of carefully-controlled corporal punishment."

In a concurring judgment, Baroness Hale of Richmond stated: "This is, and has always been, a case about children, their rights and the rights of their parents and teachers. Yet there has been no-one here or in the courts below to speak on behalf of the children. No litigation friend has been appointed to consider the rights of the pupils involved separately from those of the adults. No non-governmental organisation, such as the Children's Rights Alliance, has intervened to argue a case on behalf of children as a whole. The battle has been fought on ground selected by the adults. This has clouded and over-complicated what should have been a simple issue...".

For full judgment, go to www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050224/will.pdf

(Regina v.Secretary of State for Education and Employment and others (Respondents) ex parte Williamson (Appellant) and others; House of Lords, 24 February 2005)

Top