Liverpool Law Review

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 75–90 | Cite as

Turban or not turban — that is the question (Mandla v. Dowell Lee)

Article

References

  1. 1.
    Poulter, 25International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1976), 508.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karsten, 32Modern Law Review (1969), 215.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    [1983] 2 W.L.R. 620; 1 All E.R. 1062. References below are to the former series.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    [1983] Q.B. 1; [1982] 2 W.L.R. 932.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    See [1983] 2 W.L.R. at 627 G. for one concession.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Judicial notice is taken of such matters: cf.Price v. Civil Service Commission [1977] 1 W.L.R. 1417: more women than men are out of the employment market in their twenties and thirties.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Cmnd. 6234 (1975), para. 25.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    The then Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, wished to prohibit what the United States Supreme Court had called “not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation”:Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) 401 U.S. 424 at 431, dealing with the Civil Rights Act 1964. American cases may legitimately be used in interpretation:Snoxell v. Vauxhall Motors Ltd. [1977] I.C.R. 700.Google Scholar
  9. 11.
    For an illustration seePerera v. Civil Service Commission [1983] I.R.L.R. 166: the requirement must be formulated by the applicant.Google Scholar
  10. 13.
    The phrase “ethnic origins” occurs in the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, General Assembly Resolution 1904 (XVIII), 20 November, 1963.Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    Compare the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. For recent analysis of that statute see McCrudden, 45Modern Law Review (1982), 617 andidem, [1981]Current Legal Problems 211. For a general survey of religious discrimination see Robilliard, 6Human Rights Review (1981), 90.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    [1983] Q.B. at 15H. The 1933 Oxford English Dictionary includes a phrase omitted in the Concise: “peculiar to a race or nation”. This terminology was not put forward.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    [1983] 2 W.L.R. at 625–6.Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    At 625 G. Similarly Lord Templeman at 632 B. This view is contrary to that of the House of Lords inEaling London Borough Council v. Race Relations Board [1972] A.C. 342. Lord Kilbrandon at 386 said that the prohibited grounds had a common theme: “they have not been acquired and they are not held by people of their own choice. They are in the nature of inherited features which cannot be changed, as religion ... can be changed”. If one may join and leave a class at will the reason for the exclusion of religious discrimination loses part of its force.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    At 625 C–D.Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    At 625. A similar decision was reached inKing-Ansell v. Police [1979] 2 N.Z.L.R. 531 (Court of Appeal of New Zealand), cited by Lord Fraser. The case concerned Jews. See Williams 10Industrial Law Journal (1981), 263.Google Scholar
  17. 20.
  18. 21.
    At 631H-632B.Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    Lester and Bindman,Race and Law, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1972, 155.Google Scholar
  20. 23.
    H. C. Deb. Vol. 716, Col. 917 (16 July, 1965).Google Scholar
  21. 24.
  22. 25.
    Supra note 7. Applied inPerera v. Civil Service Commission (no.2) [1982] I.C.R. 350 to the 1976 Act.Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    So much so that leading textbooks often treat the discrimination sections together e.g. Hepple and O'Higgins,Employment Law, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 4th ed., 1981; Hood Philips,Constitutional and Administrative Law, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 6th ed. 1978. For the argument against equating race and sex see White, 5New Community (1976–77), 419.Cf. Rendelet al., Equality for Women, Fabian Research Series No. 268, p. 43 (1968).Google Scholar
  24. 27.
  25. 28.
    [1980] I.C.R. 144 (Note). This Note is the Court of Appeal's refusal of leave to appeal.Google Scholar
  26. 29.
    At 629 G. For example, in an employment case, the question will be for the industrial tribunal, and will not be appealable.Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    Singh v. Rowntree Mackintosh Ltd. [1979] I.C.R. 556, disapproving on this pointSteel v. Union of Post Office Workers [1978] 1 W.L.R. 641.Google Scholar
  28. 31.
    Previous note. The decision is on the Sex Discrimination Act, s.l(1)(b), but as stated above the same principles apply to racial discrimination. It was followed inHurley v. Mustoe [1982] I.R.L.R. 561 (race).Google Scholar
  29. 32.
    [1982] I.R.L.R. 418.Google Scholar
  30. 33.
    Supra, note 30.Google Scholar
  31. 34.
    [1983] Q.B. 17–18, 25 (“engine of oppression”, “inquisition”),Cf. Pannick,The Guardian, 28 February 1983, about the appeal court's “evident dislike” of the Race Relations Act.Google Scholar
  32. 35.
    At 630 B–D.Google Scholar
  33. 36.
    At 632 D. It is unfortunate that Lord Templeman called a violation of the Race Relations Act 1976 a criminal offence (at 630 H). It is a strange crime that is heard in the county court; the sanctions for which are damages and declarations; of which the terminology includes claimant and respondent. A breach of the legislation juridically gives rise to a statutory tort: s.57(1). The exclusion of the criminal law means that discriminators do not become martyrs.Google Scholar
  34. 37.
    SeeAnnual Report, 1978, pp.5–6.Cf. the Equal Opportunities Commission which adopts a substantially greater role in the elimination of sexual discrimination.Google Scholar
  35. 38.
    The Guardian, 9 October 1982.Google Scholar
  36. 39.
    Official Report, Standing Committee, B, 7 May–25 June, 1968, cited in Lester and Bindman,supra, note 22.Google Scholar
  37. 40.
    Singh's case, supra note 30,Panesar v. Nestle Co. Ltd. [1980] I.R.L.R. 60. InKingston and Richmond A.H.A. v. Kaur [1981] I.C.R. 631, the Tribunal called for the resolution of this dispute. Industrial tribunals also accepted claims by Sikhs:Virdee v. E.C.C. Quarries [1978] I.R.L.R. 295;Gill v. Walls Meat Co. (1977)Health and Safety Information Bulletin 12 (mentioned in Robilliard [1980]New Community 261). See alsoSingh v. Lyons Maid Ltd. [1973] I.R.L.R. 388 on the impact of the unfair dismissal legislation on Sikhs.Google Scholar
  38. 41.
    Cmnd. 6234 para. 55.Google Scholar
  39. 42.
    E.g. Lustgarten,Legal Control of Racial Discrimination, London, MacMillan, 1980, 77. The reference in the index should be to this page and p.59; Street,Freedom, The Individual and The Law, Harmondworth, Penguin, 4th ed., 1977, 299. For the contrary view see e.g. Lester and Bindman,supra note 22 at 155; MacDonald,Race Relations, The New Law, London, Butterworths, 1977, 16, 18. Some publications make no reference at all e.g. Home OfficeRacial Discrimination, H.M.S.O; 1977; Wright, Hewitt, Sedley,Race Relations Guide, London, N.C.C.L., 1978, though there is an example involving a Mr. Singh.Google Scholar
  40. 43.
    See the letter inThe Times, 3 August, 1982, from the President of the Confederation of Indian Organisations. There were two demonstrations in London against the Court of Appeal's ruling as well as a petition to the Prime Minister.Google Scholar
  41. 44.
    The Guardian, 25 March, 1983.Google Scholar
  42. 45.
  43. 47.
    Daily Telegraph, 9 February, 1980.Google Scholar
  44. 48.
    Supra note 40. The Court of Appeal gave leave to appeal but the complainant withdrew her application on the respondents' amending that regulation. The case concerns women's clothing but the same principle applies.Google Scholar
  45. 49.
    E.g. Race Relations Board,Annual Report, 1971; Williams,supra note 19 at 266; Lustgarten, 28International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1979), 221 at 238. (The same words occur inidem, supra note 42 at 157). Statements to the contrary appear in e.g. Lester and Bindman,supra n.22 at 157 andHalsbury's Laws of England, 4th ed. and vol. 14, para. 1423. For an instance of a Christian school turning away Jews, see Race Relations Board Report 1971–2, p.7 (Jews said to be a religious, not an ethnic group). See also s.35 of the 1976 Act: educational establishments fulfilling special needs of racial groups.Google Scholar
  46. 50.
    At 624 A. Lord Templeman did not mention them.Google Scholar
  47. 51.
    To the contrary are Rabbi K. L. Cohen,The Times, 3 August 1982, and the Jewish Employment Action Group [1983]Public Law 4;The Guardian, editorial 31 August 1982.Google Scholar
  48. 52.
    [1982] 3 W.L.R. at 937. This was contrary to the view of Mr. David Lane at the Committee stage of the 1976 Act: H.C. Official Reports Standing Committee A.Google Scholar
  49. 53.
    For an earlier case where it was conceded that Jews were protected seeSeide v. Gillette Industries Ltd [1980] I.R.L.R. 427. See alsoHeron Corporation v. Commis [1980] I.C.R. 713 (question of who is a Jew not dealt with).Google Scholar
  50. 54.
    E.g. MacDonald,supra note 42 at 17.Google Scholar
  51. 55.
    [1982] 3 W.L.R. 955.Google Scholar
  52. 56.
    [1979] 2 N.Z.L.R. at 543. Use of the term “presumed” is applicable to Rastafarians. Woodhouse J. speaks of “ancestral ties, whether real or assumed and the traditional and cultural values and beliefs that have been handed down and are kept in mind and adhered to by all”.Google Scholar
  53. 57.
    The Guardian, 1 October, 1982.Google Scholar
  54. 58.
    Millar v. Taylor (1769) 4 Burr. 2303;South Eastern Rail Co. v. Railway Commissioners (1881) 50 L.J.K.B. 201;Beswick v. Beswick [1968] A.C. 58;Davis v. Johnson [1979] A.C. 317;Hadmor Productions v. Hamilton [1982] 1 All E.R. 1042. InHilder v. Dexter [1902] A.C. 474, Lord Halsbury L.C. refused to speak on the interpretation of a statute he had drafted. The present rule is supported by the English and Scottish Law Commissions, Report no. 21,The Interpretation of Statutes (H.C. 256), 1969, para. 61, and by the Renton CommitteeThe Preparation of Legislation, Cmnd. 6053, 1975.Google Scholar
  55. 59.
    E.g.Re The Regulation and Control of Aeronautics in Canada [1932] A.C. 54.Google Scholar
  56. 60.
    E.g.Caird v. Sime (1887) 12 App. Cas. at 359.Google Scholar
  57. 61.
    H. L. Deb. Vol. 418 Col. 1345–6 (26 March, 1981).Google Scholar
  58. 62.
    Sagnata Investments Ltd. v. Norwich Corporation [1971] 2 Q.B. 614;R. v. Greater London Council ex p. Blackburn [1976] 3 All E.R. 1984;R. v. I.R.C. ex p. Rossminister Ltd. [1979] 3 All E.R. 385;Hadmor Productions v. Hamilton [1981] 2 All E.R. 724. He was rebuked inDavis, supra note 58, andHamilton, ibid., and in H. L. Deb. Vol. 405 Col. 503 (13 February 1980). He has recently resiled from his position:Norwich City Council v. Secretary of State [1982] 1 All E.R. 737 at 745.Google Scholar
  59. 63.
    R. v. Local Commissioners for Administration [1979] Q.B. 287, calledBradford City Council v. Lord Commissioner in Lord Denning,The Discipline of Law, London, Butterworths, 1979.Google Scholar
  60. 64.
    See for example the comments of Smith on Lord Diplock's use of recklessness inR. v. Caldwell [1981] 2 W.L.R. 509 in [1981]Criminal Law Review 393.Google Scholar
  61. 65.
    Sacks [1982]Statute Law Review at 157.Cf. Cretney, 119New Law Journal (1969), 301. 1.Google Scholar
  62. 66.
    See especially Lord Reid inBeswick, supra note 58 at 74.Cf. his contrary view inWarner v. M.P.C. [1969] 2 A.C. 256 at 279.Google Scholar
  63. 67.
    Lord Reid inBlack-Clawson International Ltd. v. Papierwerke Waldhof — Aschaffenburg A.G. [1975] 1 All E.R. 810 at 815.Google Scholar
  64. 68.
    Supra note 58 at 350.Google Scholar
  65. 69.
    See also the House of Lords Debate on the Interpretation of Legislation Bill, H. L. Deb. Vol. 405, Cols. 276–306 (13 February, 1980). The 1981 version passed the Lords but was objected to on its second reading in the Commons.Google Scholar
  66. 70.
    C.J. 1818, 389. See Leopold, [1981]Public Law 316.Google Scholar
  67. 71.
    [1976] A.C. 285. Zander believes that “simple conservatism” has prevented this device being adopted:The Law-Making Process, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980, 82.Google Scholar
  68. 72.
    Report no. 21, para. 21. Samuels has called this “government by circular”, [1980]Statute Law Review at 97. It was rejected by the Renton Committee, para. 19, 24.Google Scholar
  69. 73.
    A similar idea was mentioned by Lord Scarman inDavis, supra note 58 at 250.Google Scholar
  70. 74.
    The device “aroused the antagonism of the Parliamentary draftsmen”: Lord Hailsham in H. L. Deb. Vol. 405, vol. 300.Google Scholar
  71. 75.
    [1976] 1 All E.R. 39 at 59.Google Scholar
  72. 76.
    H.C. Official Report, Standing committee A (1976) Cols. 84–118. The debate on the second reading had only a fleeting reference to Sikhs: H.C. Deb. Vol. 1027 col. 1653.Google Scholar
  73. 77.
    Cmnd. 6234 (1975).Google Scholar
  74. 78.
    Supra note 65 at 158.Google Scholar
  75. 79.
    E.g. the Supreme Court of the United States inUnited States v. American Trucking Association 310 U.S. 534 said: “when aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there can certainly be no ‘rule of law’ which forbids its use”. (Quoted in Cross,Statutory Interpretation, London, Butterworths, 1976, 133).Google Scholar
  76. 80.
    E.g. Longley,The Times, 3 August, 1982.Cf., however,Blathway v. Crawley [1976] A.C. 397; not contrary to public policy that beneficial interest should go elsewhere if beneficiary became a Roman Catholic. Similar isRe Lysaght [1966] Ch. 191. For illustrations of discrimination on religious grounds see Hofler, 1983Law Society's Gazette 1043.Google Scholar
  77. 81.
    [1978] Q.B. 36.Google Scholar
  78. 82.
    Brynmor John, Official Report, Standing Committee A (29 April, 4 May 1976). Other reasons include: why should religious beliefs be privileged when other philosophies, e.g. communism, are not?Google Scholar
  79. 83.
    As suggested by Mr. N. Budgen, H.C. Deb. Vol. 1027 Col. 1638.Google Scholar
  80. 84.
    The Times, 3 August 1982.Google Scholar
  81. 85.
    To similar effect in the European Convention Art. 14.Google Scholar
  82. 86.
    See also Art. 3 (freedom from degrading treatment); Art. 8 (respect for private life); Art. 10 (right to freedom of expression). Art. 9 was briefly considered by an English court inPanesar, supra note 40.Google Scholar
  83. 87.
    Schmidt v. Home Office, 12 Yearbook of the European Commission on Human Rights (1969), 306. One difficulty of including religion is the problem of deciding what is a religion, as in this case.Google Scholar
  84. 88.
    Prais v. Council of the European Communities [1976] 2 C.M.L.R. 708.Google Scholar
  85. 89.
    Sikhs are sometimes an example of what may be called “multiple discrimination”: non-white, non-Christian and having their cultural centre, Amritsar, in a country other than the U.K.Cf. Irish Roman Catholics.Google Scholar
  86. 90.
    Cf. Marshall,Constitutional Theory, Oxford, Clarendon, 1971, 152, who argued that the earlier race relations legislation was directed solely at groups who could not choose to change their identity.Google Scholar
  87. 91.
    Cf. Robilliard [1980]New Community at 262.Google Scholar
  88. 92.
    Employment Act 1982, s.3, creating a new s.58(4) in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 in place of s.58(2A) which was incorporated by the Employment Act 1980, s.7.Google Scholar
  89. 93.
    See ss. 26, 29 and sched. 5. S.25(4)–(5) give a parent the right to withdraw and to send the child to another place for religious instruction provided that the running of the school is not unreasonably disrupted.Google Scholar
  90. 94.
    But seeAhmad, supra note 81 andcf. Jones v. Lee [1980] I.C.R. 310.Google Scholar
  91. 95.
    Abortion Act 1967, s.4.Google Scholar
  92. 96.
    See e.g.Prais, supra note 88 (Jew):Ahmed, supra note 81 (Muslim) (note the forceful dissent of Scarman L.J., as he then was);Esson v. United Transport Executive [1975] I.R.L.R. 48 (Seventh Day Adventist);Ostreicher v. Secretary of State [1978] 3 All E.R. 591 (Chasidic Jew).Google Scholar
  93. 97.
    E.g. the lack of a Brandeis brief and of group actions.Cf. Galanter, 9Law and Society Review (1974), 95 at 143 — strategy for making “one-shotters” into “repeat players”.Cf. also Marshall [1969]Current Legal Problems 50–1.Google Scholar
  94. 98.
    H.C. Deb. Vol. 1027 col. 1653.Google Scholar
  95. 99.
    Roy Hattersley at a rally against the Court of Appeal's ruling inMandla.Google Scholar
  96. 100.
    H.C. Deb. Vol. 1027 Col. 1547.Google Scholar
  97. 101.
    28International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1979), 222.Google Scholar
  98. 102.
    SeeZarczynska v. Levy [1979] I.C.R. 184: “the great civilised principles” of non-discrimination; andClarke v. Eley (IMI) Kynock Ltd. [1982] I.R.L.R. 482. On the earlier legislation see Bentil [1973]Public Law 157.Google Scholar
  99. 103.
    An estimated 200,000 arrived and stayed 1890–1915.Google Scholar
  100. 104.
    Cf. the number of polygamous Jewish marriages in the Law Reports (e.g.Cheni v. Cheni [1965] P.233, Sephardic Jews), with the number of Muslim marriages e.g.Ali v. Ali. [1965] P.85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editorial Board of the Liverpool Law Review 1983

Personalised recommendations