Christina Sandford v (1) Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (2) Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE HOLMAN |
| Judgment Date | 02 May 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 1139 (Admin) |
| Date | 02 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | CO/9872/2006 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2007] EWHC 1139 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Mr Justice Holman
CO/9872/2006
MISS A LAWRENCE (instructed by Felix Moss) appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT
MR P GREATOREX (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) appeared on behalf of the SECOND RESPONDENT
The FIRST RESPONDENT did not attend and was not represented
This is an appeal under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 from a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal reached in October 2006. It is important to stress at the outset that such an appeal lies only "in point of law". My task, accordingly, is to decide whether there is anything about the decision or reasoning in this case which is unlawful such that I should exercise a discretion to quash the underlying decision. But although the appeal lies only on a point of law, it nevertheless has to be firmly rooted in the facts of a particular case. I wish to stress very clearly at the outset of this judgment that my decision, although on a point of law, is ultimately very fact specific. I do not intend by this ex tempore judgment, at the end of a hearing which has been very time constrained, to indicate any proposition of law which is not already the subject of decided authority. What I say in this judgment must not be relied upon as any form of precedent in any other case.
The appellants are Mr and Mrs Sandford, the parents of Liam Christopher Sandford (I interpose and repeat, he must not be identified in any public reporting of this case). He was born on 31st October 1995 and is accordingly now aged about 11 and a half. They are plainly deeply committed parents who have fought long and hard to obtain what they believe to be the needs and requirements of their very needy son.
There was a process of statementing by the relevant local authority, the Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, with which the parents disagreed. Accordingly, as was their right, they appealed under section 326 of the Education Act 1996 to the SENDIST tribunal. Their appeal was heard over two days in late September and early October 2006, and the written decision of the tribunal was promulgated on or about 26th October 2006. The parents promptly appealed from that decision.
Their notice of appeal and grounds of appeal are wide ranging. Further, when translated into a skeleton argument by Miss Anne Lawrence, their counsel both before the tribunal and at this appeal, it was developed over about 30 pages, some of them quite densely typed. This appeal was listed and fixed on an estimate of one day. Such an estimate must include within it sufficient time for delivery of judgment and also sufficient time for any detailed reading of documents exceeding that which a judge might reasonably be expected to do as part of his daily routine. The bundle of documents is extensive in this case. Miss Lawrence's skeleton argument began with a "List of essential reading" which, when compared with the index, indicated supposed "essential" reading of about 400 pages. Even assuming a rate of reading of a minute a page, and some of the pages are very dense, that would suggest essential reading time in excess of six hours. It was quite impossible for me to devote anything remotely approaching that amount of time to pre-reading this case between the time when the papers were delivered to me last night and this morning. Further, there is a bundle of authorities which extends to 25 different authorities.
I made it quite plain at the outset of the hearing this morning that Miss Lawrence and her clients had two choices: either for this matter to be adjourned and refixed with a more realistic time estimate of a minimum of two days to allow a reasonable period of time for the supposed essential reading and to allow all the many points in her skeleton argument to be developed; or alternatively, she and they could proceed today but on the basis of a much slimmed down case whereby she identified her main point or points and effectively abandoned all the rest. After an opportunity for reflection, she and they have adopted the latter course. I therefore wish to make quite plain at the outset of this judgment, first, that my background reading of this case has been very limited and has indeed focussed almost entirely on the decision of the tribunal itself and the resulting amended statement of special educational needs. Secondly, the whole hearing has focussed on the essential point which I will shortly identify and, by the decision of the appellants and their counsel to proceed with the hearing today, they have necessarily abandoned all other points.
The essential factual background may be drawn from that part of the decision of the tribunal where they describe the facts. Liam has severe and complex special educational needs. He has a combination of a severe learning disability within the context of a pervasive developmental disorder. In the year 2000 he was formally diagnosed as autistic. His autism is severe with associated social interaction and communication difficulties and severe learning difficulties. He presents with challenging and obsessive compulsive behaviour and he has no sense of danger. Within the home he is extremely difficult to manage, and has become increasingly so as he gets older. His autism manifests itself in delayed and disordered social skills and very limited social interaction.
Since September 1998 he had been a pupil at a maintained special school called Reynalds Cross School. That has a maximum of 100 pupils, and was originally set up for those with severe learning difficulties. For an appreciable period of time Mr and Mrs Sandford, the parents, were extremely happy with Liam's progress at that school and perceived it as able to offer Liam an environment in which he would be stretched to his full potential. However, there came a time by about 2005 when they were no longer happy with Reynalds Cross School. They felt that it was no longer appropriate to meet his needs and that his needs could best, and in their view only, be met in a residential school which they identified, called Priory Horizon School. Here is the rub. The cost of a residential placement of Liam in that school for 42 weeks a year would be about £137,500 which they hoped and expected the local authority would pay. By contrast, Reynalds Cross School is a maintained school financed by the local authority, so in one sense it costs them nothing to keep Liam there, although it was said that the cost of him at Reynalds Cross school "would equate to £11,552 per annum".
The local authority considered the proposals of Mr and Mrs Sandford but came to a conclusion that he was at least adequately placed at Reynalds Cross School and that the additional expenditure for boarding at Priory Horizon School could not be justified. They prepared a statement of special educational needs accordingly. The parents disagreed with that and hence made their statutory appeal to the SENDIST tribunal.
Much oral evidence was given on both sides and Mr and Mrs Sandford relied in particular on some evidence from two people described as experts. In view of the very slimmed down basis of this appeal, I need not make further detailed reference to any of the evidence.
The outcome was that the tribunal decided that Reynalds Cross School can adequately meet Liam's needs and accordingly that it was not justifiable for them to amend the statement so as to require that he boarded at Priory Horizon School. However—and this brings me to the heart of this appeal—it was clear that Liam has many needs which could not and cannot be met by the staff of, or within the four corners of, Reynalds Cross School alone. It is upon those other needs that this appeal focuses.
I will describe them more fully in a moment, but the essence of the argument is as follows. On behalf of the parents, Miss Lawrence says, first, that in determining and describing those other needs and the required provision for them, the tribunal reached an outcome which was not based on the evidence adduced by either side and, as it were, was something that they invented or arrived at themselves. She says, second, that the outcome to which they came was not one which the tribunal had canvassed during the hearing itself, and accordingly there was an injustice in that they reached a conclusion without giving either side—but in particular the parents—an opportunity to comment upon it. She says, thirdly, and to my mind most importantly, that the outcome to which they came was too lacking in specific detail as to be enforceable or to represent a proper statement of the required educational provision.
I say at once, and briefly, that I am not prepared to consider the first two of those three grounds of complaint. In the first place, it seems to me that a specialist tribunal such as this must, at any rate to some degree, be entitled to come to a conclusion, or outcome of their own, even if it is not one that was advocated by either side, nor even necessarily supported by "evidence" by either side. A specialist tribunal must surely be able to bring its own expertise and judgment to bear in formulating their view as to the needs and required provision for the child.
The question of whether or not the outcome to which the tribunal came was sufficiently canvassed at the hearing would, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
East Sussex County Council HS 1906 2016
...functioning, the skill which he learns within the school and school room’, a waking day curriculum may be justified (S v Solihull MBC [2007] EWHC 1139 at [19] and [17]). In this context ‘need’ is what is reasonably required (R(A) v Hertfordshire County Council [2006] EWHC 3428 (Admin), [200......
-
GL v West Sussex County Council (SEN)
...the previous case law, the application for permission to appeal in the present case sought to rely on S v SENDIST and Solihull MBC [2007] EWHC 1139 as authority for the proposition that supporting the practice of generalising skills outside the college day is by definition a form of special......
-
Westminster City Council v (1) FTT (HESC): (2) A (SEND): [2023] UKUT 177 (AAC)
...functioning, the skill which he learns within the school and school room’, a waking day curriculum may be justified (S v Solihull MBC [2007] EWHC 1139 at [19] and [17]). In this context ’need’ is what is reasonably 52 Westminster CC v (1) FTT (HESC) (2) A (SEND) [2023] UKUT 177 (AAC) requir......
- CL v Hampshire CC