## Facts

- Shabina Begum, a student at Denbigh High School, challenged the school's uniform policy.
- The school permitted wearing the shalwar kameez, a traditional South Asian outfit.
- Begum wished to wear a jilbab, a longer garment covering the entire body except for the hands and face.
- She argued that the school's uniform policy infringed her right to manifest her religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- The school contended that its policy accommodated religious expression while maintaining community solidarity.
- Evidence showed the school consulted the local Muslim community and considered accommodations for religious practices.

## Issues

1. Whether Denbigh High School's uniform policy constituted an unjustified interference with Begum’s right to manifest her religion under Article 9 ECHR.
2. Whether the school's decision-making process adequately balanced competing interests and provided a reasoned justification for the policy.
3. How courts should assess the proportionality of such interferences within the scope of judicial review, particularly regarding the deference owed to the experience of school authorities.

## Decision

- The House of Lords found that the school’s uniform policy did not constitute an unlawful interference with Begum’s right to manifest her religion.
- The judgment emphasized a procedural approach, focusing on whether the school had properly considered relevant factors and provided a reasoned, evidence-based justification for its decision.
- The Lords granted a margin of appreciation to the school, recognizing its experience in managing its community, but required clear demonstration of a proper balancing exercise.
- The Court concluded that the process was robust, and there was no basis for the court to substitute its own view for that of the decision-maker.

## Legal Principles

- Proportionality in human rights adjudication requires that interferences with qualified rights be justified through a suitable, necessary, and balanced approach.
- Courts should focus on the quality and reasoning of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the outcome itself.
- Deference (the margin of appreciation) may be accorded to public authorities, particularly where they have relevant experience, but does not amount to unfettered discretion.
- The decision-maker bears the burden of demonstrating proportionality through evidence and articulated reasoning.
- The procedural dimension of proportionality ensures that fundamental rights are protected against arbitrary interference by requiring evidence-based and balanced explanations for restrictive measures.

## Conclusion

R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School established the primacy of procedural review in proportionality assessments under human rights law, requiring that decision-makers clearly balance individual rights against public interests through reasoned and evidence-based processes, and limiting judicial intervention to scrutinizing the sufficiency of such procedures rather than substituting judicial conclusions on the merits.

R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15 [2007] 1 AC 100