Human Rights | Society | Global Trend

Introduction: Smartphones in Schools

A 17-year-old student from Devon has become the latest face in a growing national debate over children’s access to smartphones in schools — and the government’s responsibility to protect them.

Flossie McShea says she was exposed to distressing and harmful online content, including pornographic material, a shooting, and even a beheading video, all while at school. She also reports receiving threatening messages via her smartphone during school hours. Now, she has joined a judicial review against the Education Secretary, arguing that the government’s failure to regulate smartphone use in schools violates students’ rights to safety, wellbeing, and education.

The Legal Action: A Judicial Review

McShea’s claim is part of a wider legal action backed by campaigners who argue that smartphones are harming young people’s mental health, concentration, and sense of safety. The case is being brought by a group of parents and young people seeking a judicial review — a process through which the High Court examines whether a public body, in this case the Department for Education (DfE), has acted lawfully in exercising its powers.

The claimants are asking the court to declare that the government’s failure to impose a nationwide ban on smartphones in schools is unlawful and inconsistent with its duty to safeguard children under various laws and conventions, including:

• The Education Act 1996, which requires the Secretary of State to promote the wellbeing and development of children;
• The Children Act 1989, which places a duty on public authorities to protect children from harm; and
• Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) — the right to private and family life, which has been interpreted to include personal safety and psychological integrity.

The Policy Background

Currently, smartphone policies in English schools are set by individual headteachers, not the central government. Many schools already restrict or ban phone use during the day, but there is no national rule.

The Education Secretary has issued guidance encouraging bans, but this guidance is non-binding. Campaigners say that leaves too much variation — with some schools enforcing strict no-phone policies, and others allowing students free use during breaks.

Proponents of a ban argue that smartphones are a constant source of distraction, bullying, and exposure to harmful material. The Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Children’s Commissioner have both raised concerns about the link between excessive social media use and mental health problems among teens.

However, critics of a blanket ban point out that smartphones can also serve educational purposes, help maintain contact with parents, and provide safety benefits during travel.

Legal and Human Rights Implications

For the courts, the key issue will be whether the Education Secretary has a legal duty to go further than providing guidance — and whether the alleged harms are severe and foreseeable enough to justify a national restriction.

The claim raises interesting questions about how far public authorities must go to protect young people from digital risks, especially when those risks arise from private technology companies rather than directly from government actions.

If successful, the case could compel the government to implement a statutory ban or issue mandatory regulations. However, judicial reviews rarely dictate precise policy outcomes; they more often determine whether the government’s decisions are rational, lawful, and procedurally fair.

Conclusion: A Generation at Stake

Beyond the courtroom, McShea’s case reflects a broader cultural reckoning with children’s digital lives. The UK’s Online Safety Act, passed in 2023, placed new obligations on tech companies to remove harmful content — but campaigners argue that this alone does not address what happens inside schools, where children are still vulnerable.

Whether or not the High Court orders a ban, the case highlights a growing consensus that society must rethink how technology and education intersect. As McShea herself put it, “I don’t think any child should have to see the things I’ve seen — least of all at school.”

The outcome of this legal challenge could set a precedent not just for smartphone policy, but for the broader duty of care owed by the state in an increasingly digital world.