Norman Coupland v Special Educational Needs Tribunal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE DYSON |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1996 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1996] EWCA Civ J0607-5 |
| Docket Number | CO/3940/95 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 07 June 1996 |
[1996] EWCA Civ J0607-5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(CROWN OFFICE LIST)
Royal Courts of Justice Strand
London WC2
Mr Justice Dyson
CO/3940/95
MR N BOWEN (instructed by Freeth Cartwright Hunt Dickens, Nottingham) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR I MCCLAREN QC (instructed by the Legal Department to the Nottingham County Council) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
( )
Friday, 7th June 1996
C was born on 12th May 1990. He has special educational needs associated with severe and multiple learning difficulties. This is apparent in all areas of his development. His range of voluntary movement is limited. He has poor visual awareness and continuing epilepsy. He tends to lean or drop sideways and backwards when sitting without support. He cannot stand or take steps without assistance. His communication skills are limited. In short he is severely disabled.
In December 1991 C and his parents starting attending groups at the Rutland House School for parents. This is a pre-school establishment which aims to give support, information and training to parents to help them work effectively with their children. In addition to running the school for parents Rutland House also operates a primary school and a secondary school. The schools' programmes are inspired by the work of the International Peto Institute for conductive information in Budapest. What lies at the heart of this appeal is the wish of C's parents that their son should attend Rutland House Primary School. It is not a maintained or grant maintained school but is approved by the Secretary of State for Education as one to which children with physical disabilities may be sent. Pupils at the school also have severe learning difficulties.
On 12th January 1994 the County Council served a proposed statement of C's special educational needs pursuant to section 73 of the Education Act 1981 ("the 1981 Act"). The material provisions of section 7 of the 1981 Act were repealed by the Education Act 1993 ("the 1993 Act") with effect from 1st September 1994: see the appendix to schedule 2 to the Education Act 1993 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provisions) Order 1994 SI 1994/2038 which I will refer to as the "Transitional Provisions Order".
On 20th December 1994 the County Council served an amended statement of C's special educational needs. It served the final statement on 16th January 1995. The parents exercised their right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal ("the Tribunal") against this statement under section 170(1) of the 1993 Act. On 24th October 1995 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. On 4th November 1995 the parents requested a review of the decision by the Tribunal pursuant to Regulation 32 of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 1994 SI 1994/1910 ("the 1994 Regulations").
On 23rd November 1995 the Tribunal refused to review its decision. The Appellant now appeals against the dismissal of the appeal and the refusal to review that decision on the grounds that both decisions were wrong in law.
The statement of 16th January 1995
Part 3 of the statement set out the special educational provision that was to be made. It identified eight main long-term objectives. At paragraph (b) it stated what special educational provision was needed by C under 13 heads. It included the following:
"Individual teaching on a daily timetabled basis, as well as throughout the school day, with the involvement of relevant health service professionals, in order to share an integrated approach to C's development, focusing on shared developmental objectives.
7 - gross motor and fine motor programmes implemented by teaching staff during the school day, to link and interface with individual therapy sessions arranged by the Health Authority.
10 - monitoring and advice for staff from a speech therapist, as part of C's broader programme of language and communication development and the management of his feeding and drooling.
- monitoring and advice for staff from a qualified teacher of the visually impaired.
12 - specialist equipment, with advice from the relevant professionals, including gaiters, supportive seating, standing-frame, phone-boards, visually stimulating materials, optokinetics, micro electronic switches and pads and computer technology."
Part 4 of the statement which was headed "Appropriate School or Other Arrangements" was in these terms:
"C should attend a school for children with severe learning difficulties. The LEA will make a place available for C at Ash Lea, Shepherd or Digby Schools. Additionally C's needs could be met at Aspley Wood School, although some enhanced arrangements would need to be made to ensure an appropriately targeted curriculum towards C's cognitive development.
The LEA will provide monitoring and advice from a teacher of the Visually Impaired."
Part 5 headed "Additional Non-Educational Provision" included:
"Provision of Occupational Therapy and Physiotherapy, appropriate to C's needs, and as part of a holistic approach to meeting his full range of needs."
The Tribunal decision of 23rd October 1995
The parents appealed against the statement. By their Notice of Appeal, dated 10th February 1995, they said that the reason for their appeal was that they "disagreed with the statement". By a letter dated 9th March 1995 they amplified their grounds of appeal saying:
"We are not satisfied with the contents of Section 3 as we feel that the LEA are not clearly defining how they will make provision for C. We are not accepting Section 4 because the named schools do not meet C's educational needs and the LEA have refused to listen to our views and those of our advisers."
The Tribunal heard a good deal of evidence. This included evidence from Mrs Robinson, on behalf of the County Council, that the cost per pupil for the four schools named in the statement ranged between £9,112 and £9,852, and that the costs per pupil at Rutland House was in the region of £22,000. The Tribunal referred in paragraph D of its conclusions to the 13 individual items of special educational provision mentioned in part 3 of the statement, and said that it was of the opinion that this part of the statement identified all the special educational provision appropriate for all the learning difficulties specified in part 2. The Tribunal could not identify any important area of provision that had been omitted or any area of provision which had been incorrectly identified.
The remaining conclusions, so far as material, are as follows:
"Although there were disagreements as to the detail of the special educational provision required there was in fact a surprising amount of agreement between the parents and the Local Education Authority on this issue. The fundamental point of disagreement was whether or not C required a form of conductive education in order to make that provision and to meet his special educational needs. The parents' view was that a form of conductive education was the only way in which C's needs could be met. Initially the LEA was of the view that conductive education as provided at Rutland House School would not be able to meet all of C's needs but in the course of the Tribunal the LEA heard evidence which caused it to conclude that whilst it still had some reservations on balance it accepted that C's educational needs could be met by a placement at Rutland House. The Tribunal was aware that there is much debate about the efficacy of conductive education; throughout, the Tribunal tried to consider the matter from the specific viewpoint of C's needs and how these could be appropriately met. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the information which it had received there was nothing to suggest that C's needs could only be met by conductive education;…
g. The Tribunal heard evidence from Ms Skillington, the Headmistress of Ash Lea School. The Tribunal was satisfied, having heard her, that Ash Lea School could make all the special educational provision identified in Part 3(b) of the Statement from its existing staffing and personnel. The parents were concerned that there was insufficient physiotherapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy cover and they were also concerned about general staffing levels and questions of safety. The Tribunal was satisfied that Ash Lea School did cope adequately and effectively with children whose needs and problems were similar to those of C and it was not persuaded that C's needs were so exceptional that the school would be unable to cope with him.
h. The Tribunal was also satisfied that Rutland House School would be able to provide for C's special educational needs.
K. The Tribunal had in mind the two statutory policies which affect the naming of a school in a Statement. In this case the parents accepted that C needed to be educated in a special school and so the issue of education in a mainstream school did not arise. So far as parental preference is concerned, the priority given to parental preference relates only to LEA schools and since Rutland House School does not fall into that category the presumption of parental preference does not arise. The Tribunal considered the matter on its merits and came to the conclusion that since in the opinion of the Tribunal both Ash Lea School and Rutland House School could meet C's special educational needs, it was relevant to consider funding issues when making a choice between them. It was clear that it would be very much more expensive for the LEA to fund a placement at Rutland House School and the Tribunal was not persuaded...
To continue reading
Request your trial