Thread by @SexMattersOrg

Aileen McColgan QC for IoC. #MayaAppeal

Not only did ET get it wrong; but necessarily, if they had got it right, they would have found that C's belief was protected.

Like KMQC, I agree with the law as set out by BCQC.

BC gave a no. of examples of how high the threshold is for article 17; we would say how low the barrier for s.10. We have some additional examples.

Properly understood the purpose of Art 17 is only to exclude the most extreme cases.

BCQC stressed the very limited restrictions that Art 10(2) imposes on speech. At ¶11 of our submissions there are additional examples of that.

I want to focus on the approach the T took to Article 10 and the relevance of that to the Grainger test.

Little if any weight was given by the EJ to Article 10 rights, and that's particularly evident at ¶91 of the ET's reasons.

"The human rights balancing exercise goes against the Claimant because of the absolutist approach she adopts."

That balancing exercise had no place at the stage of the analysis the ET was at.

The passage from Williamson that assists with article 17 is at ¶28.

Campbell v Cousans made reference to Article 17. The Article 2 right on its face gives effect to parental philosophical convictions without restriction. Unsurprising that the court imposed a threshold.

Campbell v Cousans needs to be read a little carefully before one reads it as imposing restrictions in the context of belief.

IoC agrees with C that art 17 is the only acceptable restriction on the acceptability of beliefs to be protected by s.10.

Even if that were wrong, the beliefs in question could not be excluded under article 10(1), even if capable of restriction under 10(2).

J: There hasn't been discussion of whether ECHR rights are engaged?

BCQC: I don't think there's any dispute that we're in the field covered by articles 9 and 10.

The question that then arises is whether C's belief meets threshold criteria in order to be protected at all. One could talk about whether we were within scope but it may be more precise to speak of the threshold.

KMQC: the language of engagement may encourage one to go down the path of manifestation.

J: Adjourning until 10.30 tomorrow morning. "Whether or not we give a judgment on the day remains to be seen."

The suggestion that an extempore judgment tomorrow afternoon is even conceivable is unexpected, given the importance of the issues and the weight of submissions and authorities the court has to consider. #Comment