The High Court has quashed a decision rejecting an appeal against the permanent exclusion of a student from a secondary school and ordered that the appeal be heard again by a newly constituted committee.
In a judgment delivered on 13 September 2019, Mr Justice Allen found that the committee’s decision did not show that it had decided for itself whether the student’s exclusion was warranted. It had instead treated the board of management’s decision as reasonable, which was the wrong test.
The judicial review was brought by the student, identified in the judgment only by initials and described as a minor, through his mother and next friend. The case concerned a decision by a committee appointed under section 29 of the Education Act 1998. The committee had refused the mother’s appeal on 10 June 2019.
The student, who was 16, had autism spectrum disorder. The judgment records more than 70 assaults against staff and 10 against students during about 26 months at the school. The incident that preceded the exclusion occurred on 14 November 2018, when he threw a water bottle at another student in an autism spectrum disorder classroom. The other student had a brain shunt; a special needs assistant intervened before the bottle hit her.
The mother argued that the school could and should have done more to support her son, and that his behaviour was connected to his disability. The school maintained that it had made substantial efforts to support him and that his repeated aggressive behaviour posed health and safety concerns. The committee’s written decision cited the school’s Code of Behaviour, the board’s decision as reasonable, the frequency of the behaviour and conflicting submissions about the school’s facilities, resources and support.
Justice Allen said the committee was entitled to consider whether the school had followed its Code of Behaviour, but that could not replace its own assessment of whether exclusion was warranted. The committee also listed a non-exhaustive set of issues it had considered and noted conflicts between the mother’s and school’s submissions without resolving them or stating that resolution was unnecessary. The court held that the conflict itself was not a relevant consideration and that the respondents could not add new reasons for the decision during the judicial review.
The court did not decide whether the student should be excluded. It quashed the committee’s decision and remitted the appeal to a newly constituted committee to be heard in accordance with law.