Key Facts
- •RJ, an 11-year-old with autism and other conditions, was not receiving suitable education.
- •Devon County Council (DCC) was failing to meet its statutory duties under sections 19 of the Education Act 1996 and section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014.
- •RJ had previously attended Tubers Academy (focus on video production) part-time, alongside mainstream school.
- •DCC placed RJ at Marland Primary School, but this was unsuccessful; an appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (Tribunal) resulted in a recommendation for a nurturing specialist school.
- •DCC identified On Track school as suitable, but RJ was reluctant to attend.
- •Interim provision included Inspire South West support (4 hours/week).
Legal Principles
Duty to provide suitable education
Section 19, Education Act 1996
Duty to secure special educational provision in EHCP
Section 42, Children and Families Act 2014
Test for mandatory order: 'sole justifiable response'
R (on the application of Raja) v London Borough of Redbridge [2020] EWHC 1456 (Admin)
Outcomes
Judicial review application allowed.
DCC was found to be in breach of its statutory duties under section 19 of the 1996 Act and section 42 of the 2014 Act.
Mandatory order for DCC to arrange occupational and speech and language therapy within 14 days.
Agreed by the parties.
Mandatory order for interim placement at Tubers Academy refused.
Court found that this was not the sole justifiable response, due to the risk of further hindering RJ's transition to a specialist school. The court considered the evidence suggesting that reinstating Tubers Academy could worsen RJ's reluctance to attend On Track.