“This is followed by a link to a document with a list of churches ‘in communion with the Church of England’. This list includes churches in Africa, Asia and the Americas. These churches are part of the Anglican Communion. They do not include Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches. The Eritrean Orthodox Church is not included.”
“(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's if— (a) A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic, (b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it, (c) it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and (d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.” (3) The relevant protected characteristics [include] — race; [and] religion or belief...”
“… (a) colour; (b) nationality; [and] (c) ethnic or national origins.”
“On a comparison of cases for the purposes of section … 19 … there must be no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case.”
“(2) If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provisions concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred. (3) But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision.”
“Effect 868. This paragraph allows schools which have a religious character or ethos (often referred to as faith schools) to discriminate because of religion or belief in relation to admissions and in access to any benefit, facility or service. It means that faith schools may have admissions criteria which give preference to members of their own religion and it allows them to conduct themselves in a way which is compatible with their religious character or ethos. It does not allow faith schools to discriminate because of any other of the protected characteristics, such as sex, race or sexual orientation. Nor does it allow them to discriminate because of religion in other respects, such as by excluding a pupil or subjecting him to any other detriment. Examples • A Muslim school may give priority to Muslim pupils when choosing between applicants for admission (although the Admissions Code will not allow it to refuse to accept pupils of another or no religion unless it is oversubscribed). However, it may not discriminate between pupils because of any other of the protected characteristics, such as by refusing to admit a child of the school's own faith because she is black or a lesbian. …”
“Section 29, so far as relating to age discrimination, does not apply in relation to anything done in connection with [various matters pertaining to schools]”
“(1) Subsection (2) applies to any decision of the adjudicator— (a) under section 88H(4) on whether to uphold an objection to admission arrangements, or (b) under section 88I(4)(b) or (5)(b) on whether admission arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements. (2) Any decision of the adjudicator to which this subsection applies is binding on— (a) the admission authority in question, and (b) any other person or body. (3) Where the adjudicator makes a decision mentioned in subsection (1), the adjudicator must publish a report containing— (a) the adjudicator's decision on the objection or (as the case may be) on whether the admission arrangements conform with the requirements relating to admission arrangements, and (b) the reasons for that decision.”
“Where the High Court considers that there has been undue delay in making an application for judicial review, the court may refuse to grant— (a) leave for the making of the application; or (b) any relief sought on the application, if it considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration.”
“2.4 In some cases, admission authorities will need to ask for supplementary information forms in order to process applications. If they do so, they must only use supplementary forms that request additional information when it has a direct bearing on decisions about oversubscription criteria or for the purpose of selection by aptitude or ability. Places must be allocated on the basis of the oversubscription criteria only. .... Admission authorities must not ask, or use supplementary forms that ask … for: a) any personal details about parents and families, such as maiden names, criminal convictions, marital, or financial status (including marriage certificates); b) the first language of parents or the child; ...”
“The Trust is of course aware that there may be children who want to have an education underpinned by Christian values but who do not meet the admissions criteria of Twyford CofE. In response to that demand, the Trust set up three other schools with an open admissions policy.”
“65. The Anglican point is the only provision within the oversubscription criteria which specifically reflects the designation of the school as Church of England. It is expressed in the broadest terms, ‘attendance at services of the Church of England (or churches in communion therewith)’, which still maintain a direct connection with the school’s designation. 66. The Objector suggests a number of alternative measures to achieve the same objective. I have found that the aim, specifically to preserve the Anglican ethos and character of the school is a legitimate aim. Having no faith based criteria would not achieve that aim for this school, nor would having the existing faith based criteria without the additional Anglican Point. 67. The Objector refers to the Diocesan guidance. The Trust is required by the Code to have regard to that guidance when formulating its admission arrangements. The guidance ‘strongly recommends’ that admission authorities should ‘Maintain an equal 50/50 split between foundation and open places, to facilitate inclusion and serving the common good of their local community’ and notes that for new academies with a religious character ‘at least 50% of places are to be allocated without reference to faith’. The proportion of foundation places at the school exceeds 50 per cent. However, I am satisfied that the circumstances of the school, as a long established school with a Church of England character, are in keeping with a higher percentage of foundation places. I also note that a reduction in the percentage of foundation places would not decrease the effect of the Anglican Point on faith based places and would not necessarily benefit any applicant who is afforded priority as a regular attendee at a church such as the Eritrean Orthodox Church. 68. I do not find that there is a less intrusive measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective.”
“(1) The PSED must be fulfilled before and at the time when a particular policy is being considered. (2) The duty must be exercised in substance, with rigour, and with an open mind. It is not a question of ticking boxes. (3) The duty is non-delegable. (4) The duty is a continuing one. (5) If the relevant material is not available, there will be a duty to acquire it and this will frequently mean that some further consultation with appropriate groups is required. (6) Provided the court is satisfied that there has been a rigorous consideration of the duty, so that there is a proper appreciation of the potential impact of the decision on equality objectives and the desirability of promoting them, then it is for the decisionmaker to decide how much weight should be given to the various factors informing the decision.”
“The Admissions Policy (ensures that different groups are treated equally in the admissions process – except as permitted by the Equalities Act [sic] exemption).”
“If the court cannot tell how the decision-maker would have approached matters, or what decision it would have reached, if it had not made the error in question, the requirements of section 31(2A) are unlikely to be satisfied.”
“(2A) The High Court— (a) must refuse to grant relief on an application for judicial review … if it appears to the court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred.”