Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Jaskeerat Singh Gulshan v The Lord Chancellor

[2023] EWCA Civ 306
A Sikh barrister was stopped from entering court because his ceremonial knife was too long. He sued, but the court said the rules about knife size were reasonable to keep everyone safe, and he could sue separately for bad treatment if he wanted.

Key Facts

  • Jaskeerat Singh Gulshan, a Sikh barrister, was denied entry to Ealing Magistrates Court due to the length of his kirpan (8 inches).
  • HMCTS Security and Safety Operating Procedures Guidance (version 11) restricted kirpan length to a maximum of 6 inches overall and 4 inches blade length, with discretion for longer kirpans.
  • Gulshan challenged the lawfulness of the Guidance and his treatment by security officers via judicial review.
  • Permission for judicial review was refused by May J and Cavanagh J.
  • Gulshan appealed to the Court of Appeal.
  • A new version of the Kirpan Guidance was issued after Cavanagh J's decision.

Legal Principles

Criminal Justice Act 1988, Section 139(5)(b) does not confer a positive right to wear a kirpan overriding access conditions to public buildings.

Criminal Justice Act 1988

Courts Act 2003, Sections 52-54 provides the power to exclude persons from court buildings for security reasons.

Courts Act 2003

A measure does not need to be enshrined in legislation to satisfy the 'prescribed by law' requirement under Article 9 of the ECHR; it must have a basis in domestic law, be accessible, and foreseeable.

Munjaz v United Kingdom (app. no. 2913/06)

Article 9 ECHR: Freedom to manifest religion is subject to limitations prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for public safety.

Article 9 ECHR

Article 14 ECHR prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion.

Article 14 ECHR

Proportionality test applies to limitations on Article 9 rights.

Implicit in Article 9(2) ECHR

Section 31(3C) of the Senior Courts Act 1981: Judicial review may be refused if an alternative remedy is available.

Senior Courts Act 1981

Equality Act 2010 and/or section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provide alternative remedies for discriminatory treatment.

Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998

Outcomes

Permission to appeal refused.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appellant's arguments. The kirpan length restriction was deemed proportionate to security concerns, and alternative remedies existed for the alleged mistreatment.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.