The Supreme Court has upheld a decision to deny a Rastafarian prisoner the right to wear his dreadlocks in detention, a ruling that a UK human rights group says constitutes a serious erosion of religious liberty.
The case, brought by the inmate known only as ‘M’ against the Ministry of Justice, centred on whether the prison service’s refusal to allow him to maintain uncut hair as a tenet of his faith breached his rights under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court concluded by a majority that the interference was necessary for security, hygiene and identification purposes within the prison estate.
Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) legal director Daniel Ghebrehiwet described the judgment as “deeply concerning”. He said it sets a precedent that could allow institutions to restrict religious expression on broad administrative grounds without proper justification. “The court has effectively sanctioned indirect discrimination against minority faiths whose practices do not fit neatly into standardised regimes,” he added.
Lord Reed, delivering the lead judgment, acknowledged that the policy engaged Article 9 but argued that the prison service had demonstrated a legitimate aim. He pointed to evidence that loose hair could conceal contraband and that a uniform approach to grooming aided staff in quickly identifying individuals. Dissenting opinions warned that the ruling risked diminishing the protection afforded to religious minorities in custodial settings.
The case has reignited debate about the balance between institutional order and individual belief. Legal experts note that the European Court of Human Rights has previously found similar restrictions on Sikh prisoners in France to be disproportionate. Whether this judgment will be appealed to Strasbourg remains unclear.
For the prisoner at the centre of the case, the ruling means he must either cut his hair or face continued segregation from the general population. His legal team said they are considering next steps.
The Ministry of Justice welcomed the decision, stating that the prison service has a duty to maintain security and that the judgment provides clarity for future cases. Critics, however, argue that the ruling exposes a gap in the protection of religious freedom within UK institutions.
