Ali v Head and Governors of Lord Grey School
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judge | Mr Justice Stanley Burnton |
Judgment Date | 27 June 2003 |
Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 1533 (QB) |
Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Date | 27 June 2003 |
Docket Number | Case No: HQ02X02862 |
[2003] EWHC 1533 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Case No: HQ02X02862
Carolyn Hamilton (instructed by the Children's Legal Centre) for the Claimant except on 15 May 2003, when he was represented by Ms Spencer, Solicitor Advocate, of the Children's Legal Centre
Jonathan Moffett (instructed by the Borough Solicitor, Bracknell Forest Borough Council) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 12, 13, 14 and 15 May 2003
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Introduction
In these proceedings, the Claimant, A, claims damages against the Head Teacher and Governing Body of The Lord Grey School in Milton Keynes on account of his exclusion from the school following a fire on 8 March 2001. This is my judgment on the issues of liability, which were ordered to be tried separately from the question of the amount of any damages to which the Claimant might be entitled.
The parties
The Lord Grey School is a maintained secondary (foundation) school. The Local Education Authority is Milton Keynes Council. Its head teacher is Despina Pavlou. The Council, Ms Pavlou and the school governors all have powers and duties under the Education Act 1996 and other statutes and statutory instruments, and they are all unquestionably public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998. I shall sometimes refer below to "the school", by which I mean the person responsible for the decisions made on its behalf, which in virtually all cases was Ms Pavlou.
The Claimant is aged 16. On and before 8 March 2001 he was a pupil enrolled at the school. On that date he was aged, almost, 14, and therefore of compulsory school age.
Relevant events
On 8 March 2001, during the lunch hour, a fire was discovered in a room at the school. The fire brigade were called. The fire officer formed the view that the fire had been started deliberately, and the police were informed. Three boys, the Claimant and two others, had been seen leaving the room, which was out of bounds so far as they were concerned, when the fire started. They had not raised any alarm. The police cautioned the boys, searched them and took them to the police station.
On the date of the fire, the head teacher was away. The Deputy Head Teacher, Mrs Sue Telfer, took the view that the three boys who were suspected of involvement in the fire should remain at home on the following day, a Friday, and on Monday 12 March 2001, until the school knew what was going to happen in relation to criminal proceedings. She explained that to the families of the three boys. In the case of the Claimant, that was to his older brother, B, since his parents were away on their pilgrimage to Mecca. There is an issue as to the effect of their conversation, which I address below.
The Claimant and the other two boys were released on police bail. On 29 March 2001, they were charged with arson. The Claimant's case was that he had no involvement in the arson, that the fire had been started by one of the other two boys, and that he, the Claimant, had not known what that boy was going to do.
The head teacher, Ms Pavlou, returned to the school on Friday 9 March 2001. She discussed the situation with Marilyn Barby, the Head of Student Services of Milton Keynes Council, the Local Education Authority. Ms Paviou thought it appropriate for the boys not to return to school. Ms Barby agreed.
Ms Pavlou thought that the fire had been a student prank that had got out of hand. She expected the police investigation to be completed speedily, and to result in a reprimand of the three boys. She expected that to happen by the end of March 2001, and she thought that the boys could then return to school. However, according to her witness statement, on about 20 March 2001 Ms Pavlou was informed that two of the boys had failed to report to the police station as they had been required to do. It appeared, therefore, there would not be a speedy resolution of the police investigation. As a result, she wrote to the Claimant's parents on 21 March 2001, stating that, having spoken to the police and the Local Education Authority, "your son remains excluded from school until the end of the term." The spring term ended on 5 April 2001. The school had been sending work home for the Claimant. Ms Pavlou's letter stated:
"Should you require further work for A during the period of his exclusion please contact the school and it will be arranged."
The letter gave as the reason for the Claimant's exclusion his alleged involvement in the fire. Finally, Ms Pavlou stated:
"Under the terms of the 1986 Education Act I must inform you that you may, if you wish, write to the Chairman of Governors of The Lord Grey School to discuss any aspect of this matter with him."
The Claimant's family did not contact the school for further work for A; nor did they write to the Governors.
The school continued to send work home to the Claimant until 14 May 2001, the date of the last of the SAT examinations. The work, in English, Maths and Science, was largely revision based and self-assessing. It did not require to be returned to the school for marking: the answers were provided, enabling the Claimant to check the correctness of his answers himself. The Claimant spoke to Ms Rutherford, his form teacher, about this work on a number of occasions. She was concerned that he had enough work.
Mrs Telfer wrote to the Claimant's parents on 25 April 2001. She stated:
"I am now in a position to write to you concerning A's attendance at school following exclusion.
I have been made fully aware of the progress being made into the investigation regarding the recent fire at Lord Grey and understand that the boys are to return to the police station on 14th May. Having taken advice I am therefore further excluding A until 15th May when I will contact you again. A should not return to school until an appointment has been made for you and him to come into school to discuss readmittance with Ms Pavlou.
As A is to sit SAT's examinations shortly I have arranged for Mathematics, Science and English work to be sent home and have agreed with staff that he be allowed into school to sit his exams. He should report to me on the date and time of his exams and I will take him to the appropriate room.
Under the terms of the 1986 Education Act I must inform you that you may, if you wish, write to The Chairman of Governors at The Lord Grey School, to discuss any aspect of this matter with him."
The SAT examinations took place between 8 and 14 May 2001. According to the Claimant, he did not know the date and time of the first examination, and was telephoned by his head of year on 8 May to be told that the examination had started, and that he should come immediately to the school. He did so, and was given additional time to make up for that lost at the beginning. His results in the examinations were slightly better than had been predicted before the incident of 8 March.
By 25 May 2001, the prosecution of the three boys had not been resolved. Mrs Telfer wrote again to the Claimant's parents on 25 May 2001:
"It is regrettable that I have again to write to you with regard to your son's education at Lord Grey. We understand from the police that your son has now been charged with the offence of Arson against Lord Grey and that he has entered a not guilty plea.
As we are in a situation where some of the witnesses in the case are students at Lord Grey we feel that we cannot allow the boys to return until the court case has been heard. Obviously when the proceedings are over we would welcome the opportunity to discuss the way forward. Until then I am making a referral to the access panel for alternative provision for A so that his education may continue. If you wish to discuss the matter further you may contact me at school.
Your son is now being excluded for a further 20 school days from 14th May. We will continue to set work as appropriate and would ask that you make contact with school to arrange to collect it.
Under the terms of the 1986 Education Act I must inform you that you may, if you wish, write to The Chairman of Governors at The Lord Grey School, to discuss any aspect of this matter with him."
On 4 May 2001, Mrs Telfer signed a referral form in relation to the Claimant. Most of it was completed by the Head of the Lower School, Mrs Waring. It gave the date and duration of exclusions as "9 March 2001 to present". In the box headed "What has precipitated this referral?" was written:
"A is excluded pending a court appearance for suspected arson at Lord Grey School.
Referral to Access Panel is requested as the Headteacher is not willing to negotiate transfer to another school at his stage given the circumstances and severity of the incident.
If A is deemed to be innocent then the Headteacher will be willing to negotiate re-integration at that stage."
The form stated that the parents had been consulted about the referral, and had voiced no opinions about it. In the box headed "What support do you feel would be appropriate for this pupil?" was written:
"Appropriate support would be to provide materials/supervision/advice etc pending A's court appearance. A is an able student."
The comments on the Claimant as a student were very positive:
"A is an able and motivated student. He is usually pleasant and cooperative. Behaviour issues were not relevant before the incident."
The Personnel/Resourcing Committee of the governors of the school met on 8 May 2001, and were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
AJSB v Essex County Council Worcestershire County Council Herfordshire County Council Suffolk County Council
...... within the authority's area who either attend a school maintained by the authority and children who attend an ...Under section 329A, the head teacher of a school may also request an assessment. ... by the House of Lords A v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] 2 AC 363 . There, the claimant ......
-
R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School
...is it sufficient to prevent a breach of Article 2 by simply stating that the pupil could apply to another school. In the case of Ali v The Lord Grey School at all times it was open to the claimant to apply for another school place. After the 45 days exclusion expired he could have applied t......
-
A v Essex County Council
...... before . Lord Phillips, President . Lady Hale . Lord Brown . Lord Kerr ... with his parents and three siblings, he was not at school and he was not provided with any significant education of ...The most important of them is A v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14 ......
-
R (v) v Independent Appeal Panel for Tom Hood School
...... For Tom Hood School Defendants Board Of Governors Of Tom Hood School (1) The London Borough Of Waltham Forest ...”) by which it decided not to reinstate her son V after the School's Head Teacher had permanently excluded him from the School in a letter dated 7 ...This was explained by Lord Bingham of Cornhill in Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] 1 AC ... was resolved finally in A v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2007] AC when Lord Bingham of Cornhill (with whom other ......