The High Court quashed decisions that had overturned the permanent exclusion of an anonymised pupil from a national school, finding that the appeal committee failed to apply the school’s behaviour code or consider the risks to staff and other students.
The judgment concerned a boy who was eight at the time of the case and on the autistic spectrum. The school reported about 37 incidents, mostly involving violence, between September 2018 and April 2019. During a serious incident on 3 April 2019, he assaulted five staff members. Two required hospital treatment and were absent from work, and the school was damaged.
The school board decided to exclude the pupil permanently after meetings in April and May 2019. His mother appealed under section 29 of the Education Act 1998. On 21 August 2019, the appeal committee upheld the appeal, and the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills required the school to readmit him. The committee recommended re-enrolment for limited hours, but the Secretary General’s direction did not mention that condition.
The school sought judicial review. Justice Richard Humphreys said the committee did not refer to the school’s behaviour code in its decision, set out the relevant conduct, apply the code to that conduct, or consider its effects on staff and pupils. It also failed to address the likelihood of recurrence. The judge said the evidence did not support a reasonable conclusion that there was no risk of repetition.
The committee had cited matters including the school’s handling of the pupil’s behaviour, communication about his medication and whether occupational therapy recommendations were followed. The judge found those matters were, at most, contextual and had been wrongly elevated into reasons for allowing the appeal. He also found the decision irrational and inadequately reasoned. Separately, the Secretary General gave no reason for departing from the committee’s limited-hours recommendation.
The court had granted relief in an oral ruling on 25 September 2019 and set it out in the written judgment. It quashed the appeal committee’s and Secretary General’s decisions and granted consequential directions. A reporting restriction protecting the identities of the school, pupil and mother remained in place. The court awarded costs to the school against the respondents, including reserved costs, and on 18 October stayed the costs order and any remittal to the appeal committee if an appeal were brought.