L’s Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Treacy J |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] NIQB 18 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 14 March 2012 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2012] NIQB 18
Ref:
TRE8443
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
14/03/12
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
AN APPLICATION BY L FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
L’s Application [2012] NIQB 18
________
TREACY J
Introduction
[1] The applicant is a 9 year old boy who has special educational needs (SEN)
including dyslexia. He does not have a statement of SEN but is at Stage 3 of the
school based stages described in the Code of Practice on the Identification and
Assessment of Special Educational Needs (“the Code”) which was issued by the
Department of Education in September 1998.
[2] In March 2010, when in Primary 4, the applicant was referred to the
educational psychology services of the Respondent Board (“the Board”) by his
School Principal on the basis that he “was experiencing difficulty in his literacy and
numeracy skills and had poor concentration skills”. On foot of that referral he was
assessed by Gabrielle Trinder, an Educational Psychologist employed by the Board
on 27 September 2010. Her report noted that “L was provided with individual
teaching in literacy during his P2 and P3 years” and that in P4 he “receives four
sessions of literacy and numeracy support each week within a small group”.
[3] In the course of her assessment Ms Trinder applied a series of tests which
established his “verbal, non-verbal and overall cognitive ability is within the average
range”. She tested his core attainments and found that in word reading and spelling
skills his score was in the well below average range and that his reading
comprehension was also well below average. In each of the areas she assessed she
found this average ability pupil was scoring so poorly that more than 98% of
children of his age would have achieved a better score than he did. Clearly there was
a startling difference between the results this average ability boy was capable of
achieving and those he was achieving in fact. This was despite the very significant
help his school had provided in his p2 - p4 years.
2
[4] Ms Trinder reported these results and made the following recommendation:
“A referral will be made to the Board’s outreach
support service for pupils with specific literacy
difficulties. In the interim he should continue to
receive a high level of support for literacy and
numeracy within the school’s own special needs
arrangements.”
[5] The applicant’s mother swore an affidavit in September 2011 in which she
said that as a result of Ms Trinder’s report “the Board placed L on a waiting list to
receive direct literacy support ... I fully expected that this September (i.e. September
2011) he would be given a place in Cottown Reading Support Unit. It is a specialist
facility run by the Board.’ The mother’s affidavit then exhibits a letter dated 28 June
2011 which she received from the school’s Special Educational Needs Co-ordinator
(SENCO) in which the latter reported a telephone conversation she had with the
Board on the previous day. The SENCO enquired whether the applicant would
receive support in Cottown Reading Unit during his Primary 5 year. She reports in
her letter “I was told that a letter confirming a part-time place for next year was to be
posted out to you and school this week”. This information was confirmed in the
child’s annual school report for Primary 4 which states “L will receive further
support in Primary 5 – special needs, numeracy partnership and SEELB reading unit
(part-time)”.
[6] On 4th July 2011 the mother received a letter from John Shivers, an Education
Officer with the Board, dated 27/6/2011. This letter stated that new arrangements
had been put in place for the school year 2011-2012 under which it was proposed
that a teacher from the Literacy Support Service would go out to the school to
“discuss L’s previous test scores with the class teacher and offer general advice to
the class teacher on teaching strategies that should be adopted ...” This was not the
direct literacy teaching the mother was expecting. She sought legal advice.
[7] Her solicitor wrote to the Board recounting the history and asserting that the
family had a legitimate expectation that direct teaching support would be provided
for L for his P5 year. She pointed out that the child met Board criteria for the
provision of this form of support, and asked the Board to review the child’s case. She
received a substantive reply by letter dated 22 August 2011 from John Shivers in
which he stated that “due to the high level of referrals (for direct teaching support)
the Board has had to apply criteria to access direct teaching”. He restated what the
criteria were and noted that their effect which was that L “will be considered as a
priority for support in 2012/13”. He went on to say that “whilst the Board regrets
that L (must) wait another year for direct teaching the Board has a limited budget for
the provision of non-statutory support”.
[8] The Applicant’s mother is anxious that the provision currently offered by the
board is not meeting her child’s needs or complying with Departmental policy on
the treatment of numeracy and literacy difficulties. Para 25 of her affidavit refers to
To continue reading
Request your trial