Dale Virgo v Board of Management of Kensington Primary School
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | Simmons, J,Sonia Bertram Linton, J,Evan Brown, J |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2020 |
| Date | 31 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. 2018 HCV 02728 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
[2020] JMFC Full 6
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA
IN THE FULL COURT
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Evan Brown
THE HONOURABLE Ms. Justice Nicole Simmons
THE HONOURABLE Mrs Justice Sonia Bertram Linton
CLAIM NO. 2018 HCV 02728
In the Matter of the Constitution of Jamaica
and
In the Matter of an Application alleging breach of constitutional rights under section 13 (3)(c), 13 (3)(g), 13 (3)(h), 13 (3)(i), 13 (3)(j)(ii), 13(3)(k), 13(3)(r),13(3)(s) and Section 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedom (Constitutional Amendment) Act, 2011
and
In the Matter of an Application for constitutional redress pursuant to section 19(1) of said charter
and
(By her mother and next friend Sherine Virgo)
and
and
and
Mr Isat Buchanan and Mr Mikhail Williams for the claimants
Ms Carla Thomas and Mr. Louis Jean Hacker instructed by the Director of State Proceedings for the 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd Defendants
Ms Shamsi Green instructed by the Office of the Children's Advocate for the Intervener
Constitutional law — — Freedom of expression — Freedom of religion — Equality before the law — Right of every child to such measures of protection as are required by virtue of the status of being a minor as part of the family — Right of a child to publicly funded tuition in a public educational institution at the pre-primary and primary levels — Equitable and humane treatment — Respect for and protection of private and family life and privacy of the Home — Freedom from discrimination — Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms — Section 13 (3) (c), (g), (h), (j)(ii), (k) and (s) — Education Act and Regulations
I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my sister Bertram Linton, J, I agree with her reasoning and conclusions and have nothing further to add.
I have had the opportunity of reading the judgment of my sister Bertram Linton, J and I have nothing else to add.
The 2 nd Claimant ZV, who is a minor and her parents wear their hair in a locked hairstyle. In or around April 2018, the parents applied for a place at the Kensington Primary School, in the parish of St. Catherine. She was accepted to the school and was to commence the new school term in September 2018. In May 2018, the 2 nd Claimant's mother signed the relevant contract for her to be registered. On or about July 9, 2018 the child and her mother attended an orientation session, where the mother was presented with a school rule handbook. An issue then arose as to the locked hairstyle the child was wearing, as there was a policy of ‘ no braids, no beads, no locking of hair’. The mother was told that she had to remove the locks, or cut the child's hair, failing which, there was a possibility that the offer of a place at the school could be withdrawn. During a heated discussion, the stated reason given to the mother, is that parents do not wash their dreadlocked children's hair, in a timely manner, and the hair gets “ junjo” and this had created serious lice infection issues in the past. The parties and the court understood that to mean that the hair worn in that fashion encouraged insanitary conditions among the children and was a health hazard. The mother made enquires as to where in the school handbook there was such a rule, and she was informed that it was an unwritten policy based on the experience of the personnel at the school, which had prompted intervention by the school authorities in the past.
Thereafter the mother was advised by school authorities that the child could attend the school's mandatory summer school program with her locked hairstyle, however she would not be allowed to attend school in September 2018, unless the child's hair was without the locks or cut. She was given a deadline of 28 th August, 2018 for the locks to be removed, failing which there was the possibility that the offer of a space for the child could be withdrawn.
The mother, it was reported, communicated that it was just a hairstyle and she did not see what the fuss was about, as it was not harming anyone and that she would discuss it with her husband. She also intimated that she thought it was an unfavourable comment on her family's sanitary practices, to which she took serious objection. No further discussion was had with the school, but it is clear that the parents objected to the demands of the school in respect of how their daughter's hair was to be kept.
By way of Notice of Application for Court Orders dated and filed on the 3 rd of August, 2018, the Claimants sought an order restraining the Defendants from denying the child's attendance to Kensington Primary School for the academic year commencing September 2018. On the 3 rd of August, 2018 before Mrs Justice Palmer-Hamilton an order was made by consent in the following terms:
“The 1 st and 2 nd Defendants are restrained from denying ZV, daughter of the 1 st and 2 nd Claimants entry to and attendance at the Kensington Primary School for the academic year commencing September, 2018 until the determination of the constitutional claim brought herein.”
The Claimants allege that their constitutional rights have been infringed by the imposition of the Defendants' unwritten policy of ‘ no braids, no beads, no locking of hair’. They filed a Fixed Date Claim Form on the 18 th of July, 2018 and an amendment on the 7 th of September, 2018. In the Amended Fixed Date Claim Form the Claimant requests the following Declarations:
“1. A declaration that the policy to exclude individuals of school going age from being admitted to and /or attending primary and/or secondary schools in Jamaica on the basis of wearing their hair in dreadlocks is unconstitutional in that it breaches the following rights of the individual to which the following declarations are sought:
a. The right to freedom of expression (s 13(3)(c)); so that a declaration that the practice or policy of 1 st and/or 2 nd Defendant, to impose rules that prohibit the attendance at School of ZV (hereinafter referred to as ZV) for reason that she wears dreadlocks contravenes her right to freedom of expression guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Amendment) Act 2011;
b. The right of equality before the law (s 13(3)(g); so that a declaration that the practice or policy of the 1 st and/or 2 nd Defendants that prohibit the attendance at School of ZV for reason that she wears dreadlocks contravenes her constitutional right to equality before the law;
c. The right of every child (i) to such measures of protection as are required by virtue of the status of being a minor or as part of the family, society and the State; (ii) who is a citizen of Jamaica, to publicly funded tuition in a public educational institution at the pre-primary and primary levels 13(3)(k); so that a declaration that the practice or policy of the 1 st and/or 2 nd Defendants that prohibits the attendance at School of ZV for reason that she wears dreadlocks contravenes her constitutional rights and protections afforded at Section 13(k) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Amendment) Act 2011, as well as her statutory right to enrol in and attend School as provided for at Section 28 of the Child Care and Protection Act;
d. The right to equitable and humane treatment by any public authority in the exercise of any function 13 (3)(h), a declaration that the practice or policy of the 1 st and/or 2 nd Defendants that prohibit the attendance at School of ZV for reason that she wears dreadlocks contravenes her constitutional right to equitable and humane treatment by a public authority in the exercise of their functions;
e. 13 (3)(j)(ii) respect for and protection of private and family life, and privacy of the home; or
f. A declaration that the decision of the 1 st Respondent to deny ZV full enrolment at School until or unless her dreadlocks are cut breaches her right to due process as guaranteed at Section 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms;
g. Any other right entrenched in the constitution.
2. A declaration that the policy to exclude individuals who wear dreadlocks of school going age from being admitted to and/or attending primary and/or secondary schools in Jamaica unless the said dreadlocks are removed is unconstitutional in that it has breached is breaching or is likely to breach the following collective rights of the family:
a. The right to freedom of expression (s 13(3)(c));
b. The right to equality before the law (s 13(3)(g));
c. The right to freedom from discrimination on the ground of race, place of origin, social class, colour, religion or political opinions (s. 13 (3) (i) (ii));
d. The right to equitable and humane treatment by any public authority in the exercise of any function (s. 13 (3) (h));
e. The right of everyone to respect for and protection of private and family life, and privacy of the home (s. 13 (3)(j)(ii));
f. The right to due process (s. 13 (3)(r), 16);
g. The right of freedom of religion (s. 13 (3)(s)); and
h. Any other right entrenched in the constitution.
3. A direction that orders the 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd Defendants to eliminate all rules, practices or policies that prohibit the attendance of ZV at School for reason that she wears dreadlocks;
4. A declaration that any policy or rule made by a public official that prohibits the wearing of dreadlocks in any forum is unconstitutional and is accordingly void ab initio.
5. A declaration that pursuant to section 13(5) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms that private...
To continue reading
Request your trial