One law for all? Barrister argues Sharia councils threaten Britain's equal justice

A controversial op-ed argues that Sharia councils have grown across Britain, functioning alongside the state’s courts and eroding the principle that justice applies equally to every citizen. The piece, written by criminal lawyer Laila Cunningham, portrays these councils as more than mediation bodies for family disputes and casts them as a parallel legal system that can sideline women’s rights and free speech.

Cunningham recounts a courtroom moment that she says illustrates the problem. While prosecuting a woman charged with assault at Bromley Crown Court last year, she says the defendant appeared in a full burka, with face, head, and body concealed. She asked the judge to require the wearer to uncover, but the judge refused, citing the defendant’s religious rights. Cunningham writes that this encounter crystallized her concerns about the principle of open justice being edged aside in the name of avoiding offence. Her column ties that moment to a broader claim that Sharia councils have become a shadow system operating alongside British justice.

The piece cites estimates that around 85 Sharia councils exist across the country and quotes Baroness Cox, who, as early as 2017, warned that such bodies were evolving into a “parallel quasi‑legal system.” Cunningham also references a 2018 Home Office review she says documented troubling practices: in one case, a woman identified as Ayesha described a Sharia council denying her a divorce despite her husband’s physical abuse while she was pregnant, and attempts to throw their child from a window. The review, she notes, was commissioned by the Conservative government but reportedly shelved, allegedly to avoid appearing intolerant toward religious communities.

Cunningham argues that the political response has been inadequate. She criticizes Labour for what she characterizes as a soft stance on Sharia councils, pointing to a New Labour-era debate in which MPs such as Barry Gardiner reportedly suggested support for Sharia law so long as it remained within mosques and communities. The column contends that allowing groups to govern themselves undermines the longstanding principle of one law for all and sends a message that certain groups can opt out of the national legal framework. It concludes that vulnerable people—especially women and children—may find themselves with diminished protection when testimony is devalued or when due process is not upheld.

The op-ed also juxtaposes the Sharia issue with other high‑profile tensions around religion and public life. Cunningham points to incidents that she says reflect the chilling effect of perceived religious sensitivities in Britain. She notes an episode outside the Turkish embassy earlier this year in London, in which a man protested by burning a Quran and a bystander subsequently attacked him with a knife; the attacker received a suspended sentence, which Cunningham interprets as evidence that context tied to religion influences judicial outcomes. The piece also cites the case of a Batley Grammar School teacher who faced threats after showing a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad in 2021; the teacher was forced into hiding, and Cunningham argues the school and authorities failed to defend free expression. A Wakefield schoolboy who faced threats after a Quran incident in 2023 is also mentioned as part of the broader pattern. These examples, the author writes, demonstrate how freedom of speech and equal protection under the law can be compromised when religious sensitivities drive judicial and police responses.

Cunningham argues that the country’s identity—built on equal justice, free speech, and one law for all—would be betrayed if criticism of religion were criminalized or if parallel legal systems were allowed to persist unchallenged. She asserts that existing legal instruments, such as canon law in the Church of England or Beth Din in Jewish communities, operate within the Arbitration Act 1996 and are subject to the consent of both parties and to British law. In contrast, she contends that Sharia councils routinely fall short of those standards and that the state should not tolerate parallel systems that can deprive individuals—particularly women—of full legal recourse.

Cunningham closes by warning that the toleration of parallel structures risks normalizing a two-tier approach to justice. She calls on policymakers to reaffirm the principle that all citizens are subject to the same law, regardless of faith, and to resist what she characterizes as a creeping retreat from open justice. She argues that only a robust, universal framework can protect the rights of all Britons and preserve the country’s tradition of equal justice under the law.

This article reflects Cunningham’s view as expressed in the op-ed and does not constitute an endorsement of its positions. The issues surrounding Sharia councils, religious liberty, and equal access to justice are the subject of ongoing public and legal debate in Britain about how to balance cultural accommodation with the protection of universal legal rights.