Kensington Primary breached rights of student denied access due to dreadlocked hair, Appeal Court rules

   

The Court of Appeal on Monday ruled that Kensington Primary had breached the constitutional rights of a female student who was denied access in 2018 after failing to trim her dreadlocked hair. 

 

Outgoing president of the Court of Appeal, Justice Patrick Brooks, in handing down the decision, said: "It is declared that the board of management of Kensington Primary on the wearing of dreadlocks hairstyle has breached the following rights as they related to ZV's rights."

 

The judge noted that the child's right to freedom of expression and the right to equitable treatment by a public authority in the exercise of any function were violated.

 

The landmark decisions overturned in part a 2020 decision of the Supreme Court that the school's policy did not breach the child's constitutional rights.

 

The school had justified its position on the basis that it found that the hairstyle harboured lice and 'junjo' (mould) infestation, and threatened to withdraw their child's admission if the then five-year-old student's hairstyle remained.

 

But the student's parents, Dale and Sherine Virgo, who refused to cut their daughter's hair, instead filed a lawsuit against the school's board, the Education Ministry, and the Attorney General, arguing that the child's constitutional rights had been breached.

 

But Justices Sonia Bertram-Linton, Evan Brown, and Nicole Simmons ruled that Kensington Primary School did not breach the child's constitutional rights when it denied her access.

 

The court had also ruled that Dale, who was listed as the first claimant, had no right or capacity to bring the claim, a decision which the appellate court upheld.

 

The claimants, however, had sought a number of orders from the court, including a declaration that the contentious grooming policy excluding dreadlocks was unconstitutional and breached the claimants' rights to freedom of expression, equality before the law, freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race, place of origin, social class, colour, religion or political opinions, among other reasons.

 

But the Court of Appeal judges in their ruling had indicated that the matter was not about religious rights and freedoms, but self-expression.

 

In the meantime, attorney-at law Isat Buchanan, who had represented the Virgos in the lower court and was the instructing counsel in the case at hand, has hailed the case as a victory for the entire Jamaica while emphasising that the court "got it right".