The High Court refused an application for a mandatory interlocutory injunction directing State respondents to provide a teenage girl with an educational placement. The ruling concerned interim relief only; the substantive judicial review proceedings, including challenges to her expulsion and requests for other relief, remained to be heard.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as A.McD., had been expelled from St. Michael’s House Grosvenor School in 2012. The school’s board confirmed the decision on 20 March, saying her behaviour significantly disrupted learning and posed a real and significant threat to the health and safety of pupils and staff. An appeal was rejected on 22 May 2012. The court said those decisions had yet to be dealt with in the substantive proceedings.
Efforts to find another placement had not succeeded by the time of the injunction hearing. Carmona Special School declined to offer a place, saying it lacked the clinical and therapeutic supports it considered necessary. St. Augustine’s School had earlier said it was unsuitable because it served children with mild intellectual disability, while the applicant had moderate intellectual disability. A possible application to St. Catherine’s Special School was not pursued after the applicant’s father said he saw no point in proceeding, given the information relayed about a waiting list and catchment area.
The applicant had been out of school for more than a year and was receiving two hours of home tuition a day, although funding was available for up to 20 hours a week. The court noted that she could not cope with more than two hours daily. Her father believed the lack of a school place was harming her social skills and future prospects.
The judge rejected the respondents’ argument that expert evidence was needed to establish shortcomings in the current provision. She said the evidence showed the applicant’s social education was gravely deficient and that home tuition was intended as a temporary measure, not a replacement for learning to interact with peers.
However, the court held that the high threshold for a mandatory interim order against State respondents had not been met. The judge found no bad faith or conscious and deliberate disregard of the applicant’s rights; those involved continued to seek a school placement. The court also declined to make a declaration at this stage, saying the substantive case was sufficiently advanced for an early full hearing. The requested interim relief was refused.