LM & Anor, R (on the application of) v An Academy Trust
[2024] EWHC 2267 (Admin)
RWU, R (on the application of) v A Governing Body of A Academy
8 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2828 (Admin)
High Court
A boy was kicked out of school. A panel reviewed the decision and said the school should reconsider. The school still kicked him out. The court ruled the school followed the rules, even though the boy may have been at risk of being exploited. The court said there wasn’t enough evidence the school knew he was at risk at the time they made the decision to permanently exclude him.
Key Facts
- •RWU (Claimant), a 14-year-old, was permanently excluded from the Academy.
- •The exclusion followed five suspensions within five weeks for various behavior issues, including drug possession.
- •An Independent Review Panel (IRP) quashed the Governing Body's Disciplinary Panel (GDP) initial decision not to reinstate RWU, directing reconsideration.
- •The GDP, after reconsideration, upheld the permanent exclusion.
- •The case involved questions about Child Criminal Exploitation (CCE), intensity of review, and the relevance of post-decision events.
Legal Principles
Public authorities have a duty to follow policy guidance unless there's good reason not to.
R (A Parent) v XYZ School [2022] EWHC 1146 (Admin) at §54
Judicial review considers an impugned decision based on information available or should have been available to the decision-maker at the time.
R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs (No.2) [2008] UKHL 61 [2009] AC 453 at §131; and Kenyon v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2020] EWCA Civ 302 at §28
The test for unreasonableness involves whether the decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions and whether there's a demonstrable flaw in reasoning.
R (A Parent) v Governing Body of XYZ School [2022] EWHC 1146 (Admin) at §55; R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin) [2019] 1 WLR 1649 at §98
Public authorities have a positive obligation under Article 4 ECHR to take appropriate measures to protect individuals from trafficking or exploitation.
TDT (Vietnam) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1395 [2018] 1 WLR 4922 at §33(1)
Reconsideration after quashing requires a fresh consideration of all issues, not just those leading to the quashing.
A Parent at §33
Outcomes
Judicial review claim dismissed.
None of the four grounds for judicial review succeeded. The court found no public law error in the GDP's reconsideration of the permanent exclusion.
Permission to appeal refused.
The court saw no realistic prospect of success on appeal, particularly regarding the Article 4 protection duty and the conscientious reconsideration.
Similar Cases
TZA, R (on the application of) v A Secondary School
[2023] EWHC 1722 (Admin)
THE KING (ON THE APPLICATION OF SWALCLIFFE PARK SCHOOL) v WOKINGHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL
[2023] EWHC 1451 (Admin)
SS v Proprietor of an Independent School (Special Educational Needs)
[2024] UKUT 29 (AAC)
RJ, R (on the application of) v Devon County Council
[2023] EWHC 961 (Admin)