Mr Ul Haq challenged the lawfulness of Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council's policy forbidding raised edgings around graves. As a Muslim he believed that the grave was sacrosanct and that stepping on it would be an offensive act proscribed by Islam; nevertheless, the council refused him permission to erect four-inch raised marble edging around his father's grave. He sought an order quashing the council's policy and prohibiting it from enforcing the prohibition on the edging of Muslim graves. He relied on various reports from Islamic scholars. The council explained that it had opted to manage the cemetery in accordance with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's lawn principle: graves of uniform appearance with rows of consecutive headstones, lawn areas in front of each memorial and without fences, barriers or other obstructions. The policy gave an opportunity to contemplate in a quiet and generally uniform setting and emphasised equality in death. Though there were some exceptions to the lawn principle at the cemetery – most notably in the children's area – the general appearance remained. Individuals could seek permission for wooden grave edgings flush with the ground and the council had erected signs in English and Urdu advising visitors not to walk on the Muslim graves. Mr Ul Haq challenged the council's policy on four grounds: breach of Article 9 ECHR (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), breach of Article 8 ECHR (respect for private and family life), direct discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 and indirect discrimination contrary to section 19 of the same Act.

It was common ground that the principal issue arose under Article 9 ECHR. The court accepted that Mr Ul Haq's desire for the marble edging was sufficiently linked to his underlying belief as to constitute a manifestation of religious belief. The public authority had undoubtedly interfered with his Article 9 rights. As to justification, the council had one or more legitimate aims: protecting the rights of others, including the loved ones of those buried in the Muslim section of the cemetery, on the understanding that it would conform to the lawn principle, and protecting the lawn principle itself – of importance to both believers and non-believers alike. There was also the legitimate aim of protecting the health and safety of visitors and staff, for example when carrying out maintenance, and the means adopted had a rational connection to those aims. Given that there were differing views within the Muslim community itself, the council had been entitled to exercise its own judgement in a sensitive fashion. The council had consulted widely on the revision of its policy in 2016, it had been willing to accommodate the wishes of various parts of the Muslim community, in particular by permitting the mounding of graves, and it had the necessary knowledge from which to form a judgement on the practicalities, including health and safety issues. The court determined that there had been no breach of Articles 9 or 8. The claim of indirect discrimination on grounds of religion raised the same issues as did those under Article 9 and the court rejected it for the same reasons. As to the claim for direct discrimination on the ground of age – because the family of a dead baby or infant was treated differently from that of a dead adult – the difference of treatment was sufficiently justifiable; accordingly, there had been no breach of the 2010 Act. The claim was dismissed. [Frank Cranmer]