The British Rabbinical Union has announced its intention and plan to launch a judicial review of the CWS Bill upon reaching Royal Assent. The reasons and basis are give here:

And their KC opinion can be found here:

It is worth noting that their legal challenge reflects their particular experiences and areas of concerns. Other legal opinions have concerns over aspects of the Bill in addition to these.

They are certainly not the only party and group who are considering and planning legal challenges,
for example:
Do follow the insights of solicitor Michael Charles,

And do note three other KC opinions, all citing areas considered unlawful and liable to legal challenge.

Opinion by Steve Broach KC – crowdfunded by HE UK.

Opinion by David Wolfe KC – obtained by Education Otherwise

Opinion by Aiden O’Neill KC, the KC who successfully took the challenge to the Named Person Scheme to the Supreme Court – obtained by Christian Institute

In addition, Home Education UK obtained a legal opinion from Steve Broach KC in 2023 on a DFE Statutory Instrument.
That instrument contained proposals to amend Pupil Registration Regulations to block deregistration on demand for all children attending both mainstream and county funded SEN placements for children with CIN CP & EHCPs.
Steve Broach KC deemed this likely unlawful.

You can read more in his opinion here

Therefore, the controversial amendments 121A [now 44] and 131A (home visits for certain cohorts of children within 15 days of going on the CNIS register) are likely unlawful.

This is apart from the fact that a key part of amendment 121A (44) is based on an Act that applies to England only, that does not apply to Wales – you can read more on that remarkable oversight here.

So, obstructing deregistration for children with CIN – children in need – plans is likely unlawful.

And as addressed here previously, obstructing deregistration for children puts them  at increased danger, as risking making them victims of discrimination on grounds of disability. Please read more here and here.

The British Rabbinical Union’s reasons for challenge include

• Incompatibility with ECHR Articles 9 and A2P1 – The Bill interferes with protected rights without providing statutory clarity on how religious education will be assessed, creating disproportionate and unlawful interference

• “Breach of The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)”

 This applies to England, Scotland and Wales, and requires public authorities to have due regard to certain equality considerations when exercising their functions, like making decisions.

• Unlawful delegation of legislative power – Parliament has conferred coercive enforcement powers without defining their lawful scope, delegating that essential function to secondary guidance.

 Failure of legal certainty – Families are subject to sanctions without being able to know, with precision, what the law requires of them.

The Articles cited in the first reason are found in the Humans Right Act, namely:

Article 9  – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 2 of Protocol No. 1  – Right to education

No person shall be denied a right to an education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions

Other articles that can potentially be used in such legal challenges but that are not specified in this announcement of intention include:

Article 8

Right to respect for private and family life

1Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10

Freedom of expression

1Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 14

Prohibition of discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.