JUDICIAL REVIEW

Summary of Judgment: Isherwood & Ors v The Welsh Ministers

 

Background

This judicial review challenged two key documents issued under the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Act 2021: the RSE Code and the RSE Guidance, which make Relationships and Sexuality Education (RSE) mandatory in Welsh maintained schools. The claimants — parents and a children’s advocate — objected on religious or philosophical grounds, arguing that the lack of a right to withdraw their children from RSE violated parental rights.

 

Legal Issues Considered

 

The court examined whether:

1.      A common law right exists allowing parents to withdraw their children from RSE lessons.

2.      Statutory or human rights are infringed—specifically under Article 2 of Protocol 1 (parents’ right to education in line with convictions) and Article 9 (freedom of thought and belief).

3.      The RSE Code and Guidance improperly override such rights.

4.      The materials constitute improper state indoctrination rather than neutral, pluralistic education.

 

Court's Findings

​

• No parental right of withdrawal exists under common law in Wales for RSE.

• The statutory reform did not breach human rights, as the Education Act’s structure already removed any excusal rights with proper legislative authority.

• The RSE Code and Guidance are lawful; they do not promote indoctrination, and they respect pluralism. They present RSE in an objective, critical, and balanced manner — upholding democratic values and not infringing on minority views.

• Article 9 protections are not violated, as RSE falls under the broader framework of educational rights in Article 2 of Protocol 1, which is the specialized provision here.

 

Conclusion

All claims were dismissed. The court upheld the Welsh Government’s implementation of mandatory RSE, finding that the curriculum respects legal, ethical, and human rights constraints, while supporting inclusive, informative education.

 

Critical Perspective

While the court’s judgment upholds the legality of mandatory RSE, significant concerns remain. By removing any parental right of withdrawal, the ruling effectively prioritizes state-defined educational standards over individual family convictions, raising questions about proportionality and parental autonomy. Critics argue that this approach risks undermining informed consent and may pressure schools to deliver content that some families find objectionable on moral, religious, or developmental grounds. Furthermore, while the judgment emphasizes objectivity and pluralism, there is little independent scrutiny of how such balance is implemented in practice, leaving a potential gap between legal theory and real-world classroom experience. The decision also sidesteps broader debates about the appropriateness of introducing sexualized content to very young children, an issue highlighted in public discourse and safeguarding concerns across the UK.