One law for all: Barrister warns of shadow Sharia councils in Britain

An op-ed by Laila Cunningham, a criminal lawyer and Reform Westminster City Councillor, argues that Sharia councils operate across Britain as a shadow legal system that undermines the principle of one law for all. Cunningham contends these councils are more than mediation and that vulnerable women are especially at risk when such systems run alongside British courts.

She recounts a Bromley Crown Court case from last year in which a defendant appeared in a full burka, covering the face, head and body. Cunningham, who is Muslim herself, notes that in many Islamic countries the burka is banned in court, while British courts require the removal of hats or coverings. In this instance, the judge refused Cunningham’s request to order the defendant to uncover, citing the woman’s religious right. She says this episode shows the justice system bending to avoid offense rather than ensuring the open and visible administration of justice.

Cunningham links the Bromley incident to a broader concern about a shadow system of Sharia councils, which she says operate around 85 sites across the country and claim to offer mediation for family disputes. While supporters describe them as culturally sensitive forums, she argues the evidence points to a parallel quasi-legal structure that can operate outside the framework of British law. The point she emphasizes has long been raised by critics: the notion that some communities may feel encouraged to accept different standards of justice rather than the same standard for all citizens. Baroness Caroline Cox warned as far back as 2017 that Sharia councils risk evolving into a more formal alternative legal system.

Cunningham notes that Donald Trump, addressing the United Nations General Assembly, claimed that London has been changed by a move toward Sharia law under a controversial mayor. She says the claim, while incendiary, underscores real anxieties about how jurisdictional authority is perceived when parallel mechanisms are discussed in public debate. In her reading, the existence of Sharia councils is not simply a matter of mediation; it is a signal of a system that some fear could undermine open justice and equal protection under British law. A 2018 Home Office review is often cited in this debate, documenting cases in which women were pressured into abusive marriages, denied divorces, or treated as second-class participants in the process. The review was commissioned by the Conservative government, but Cunningham says it was shelved amid concerns about perceptions of intolerance. One documented case involved a woman later identified as Ayesha, who was refused a divorce by a Sharia council despite ongoing physical abuse.

Political responses to these concerns have varied. Cunningham points to statements by Sarah Sackman, then Minister for Courts, defending Sharia councils as a matter of religious tolerance. She also cites remarks by Labour MP Barry Gardiner, who said he would support Sharia law so long as it stayed within mosques and communities. Cunningham argues that permitting any group to govern itself outside the collective framework of national law effectively signals that there are two sets of rules, which undermines the principle of one law for all and diminishes protections for women and children who may become trapped in local arrangements.

Beyond policy debates, Cunningham highlights a series of incidents she says illustrate the consequences of a tolerating stance toward parallel legal systems. She points to a confrontation outside the Turkish embassy in London earlier this year, when Hamit Coskun burned a Quran in protest and was confronted by Moussa Kadri, who attacked Coskun with a bread knife and threatened his life; Kadri walked away with a suspended sentence. Cunningham argues the context was deemed sensitive and thus the court did not impose a custodial penalty that might have occurred in other circumstances. She cites the Batley Grammar School episode from 2021, when a teacher who showed a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad faced threats and had to go into hiding, while the school issued apologies to those who felt offended. A 2023 Wakefield incident, in which a 14-year-old boy faced threats after scuffing a Quran copy, ended with police concluding no crime had been committed after a review of the circumstances. Cunningham uses these cases to argue that free expression and equal protection can be eroded when authorities hesitate to apply the law evenly across communities.

If Britain truly values equal justice, Cunningham argues, there must be a reaffirmation of a single, secular legal framework that applies to all citizens, regardless of faith. She warns that labeling criticism of religious practices as hate speech or Islamophobia risks criminalizing legitimate scrutiny of parallel systems and stifling public debate. The piece closes with a pointed appeal for openness and accountability: a Britain in which one law applies to everyone, without religious privilege, and where freedom of expression remains protected.

Laila Cunningham is a criminal lawyer and Reform Westminster City Councillor.