R v West Riding of Yorkshire Justices. ex parte Broadbent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1910 |
| Date | 1910 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Education - Schools - Non-compliance with Attendance Order - Reasonable Excuse - Provision of efficient Elementary Instruction -
Sect. 11 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, provides that, if a parent of a child above the age of five years who is under the Act prohibited from being taken into full time employment habitually and “without reasonable excuse” neglects to provide efficient elementary instruction for the child, a Court of summary jurisdiction may make an attendance order (i.e., an order that the child attend a certified efficient school). The section further provides that “any of the following reasons shall be a reasonable excuse”: (1.) that there is not within two miles from the child's residence any public elementary school open which the child can attend, or (2.) that the absence of the child from school has been caused by sickness or any unavoidable cause.
By s. 12, if the attendance order is not complied with, “without any reasonable excuse within the meaning of this Act,” a Court of summary jurisdiction may inflict a penalty on the parent.
By s. 48, “Terms in this Act shall, so far as is consistent with the tenor thereof, have the same meaning as in the
By s. 74 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, the following reason, amongst others, shall be a reasonable excuse, namely, “that the child is under efficient instruction in some other manner”:—
Held, that at the hearing of a summons taken out under s. 12 of the Act of 1876 for non-compliance with an attendance order the parent is entitled to call witnesses for the purpose of shewing that he is providing efficient elementary instruction for the child at home, inasmuch as the meaning of the expression “reasonable excuse” in s. 12 of the Act of 1876 is not confined to the two reasons mentioned in s. 11 of that Act as being a reasonable excuse, but includes the reason mentioned in s. 74 of the Act of 1870, namely, that the child is under efficient instruction in some other manner.
Two rules nisi.
The first rule called upon the respondents, who were certain justices for the West Riding of Yorkshire, to shew cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue to remove into the High Court the records of two convictions by them of the applicant, John William Broadbent, dated February 12, 1910.
The second rule called upon the respondents to shew cause why they should not hear and determine two informations upon which the convictions of February 12, 1910, respectively took place.
The following were the material facts. On October 13, 1909, an information was preferred against the applicant before justices for the petty sessional division of West Money, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, charging the applicant with unlawfully habitually and without reasonable excuse neglecting to provide efficient elementary instruction for his daughter Mary Broadbent (who was not less than five nor more than fourteen), notwithstanding that due warning in accordance with s. 11 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, had been given to him to cause the child to attend some certified efficient school.
There was a second information in the same terms in respect of another daughter, Eleanor Broadbent.
On October 23, 1909, the justices made an order upon each information that the child in respect of whom the information was laid should attend Barkisland endowed school every time the school was open, and that the applicant should use all reasonable efforts to ensure the attendance of the child at that school.
On February 12, 1910, the applicant was charged before justices of the petty sessional division of West Money upon two informations with having failed to comply with the attendance orders of October 23, 1909.
At the hearing on February 12, 1910, counsel on behalf of the applicant submitted to the justices that pursuant to s. 12 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876, the applicant was entitled to give evidence that he had a reasonable excuse within the meaning of that statute for not complying with the attendance orders, and that it was a reasonable excuse that the children were in fact receiving efficient elementary instruction in some other manner than by attending at school, and he tendered the evidence of witnesses to that effect. The witnesses proposed to be called before the justices on behalf of the applicant were prepared to give evidence that in fact each child was and had been since the date of the attendance orders receiving efficient elementary instruction at home, and that, having regard to the state of health and capacity of the children, the instruction which they were and had been receiving was more efficient than the instruction which they would receive in a public elementary school. The justices held that the applicant was not entitled to give the evidence andrefused to hear it, and they convicted the applicant and inflicted a fine upon each information. The rules were then obtained by the applicant upon the ground that the justices refused to hear evidence of a reasonable excuse within the meaning of the Elementary Education Act, 1876F1, for non-compliance with the attendance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King (Martin) v Mahony
...(1) 22 Q. B. D. 345. (2) 15 Q. B. 121. (3) 14 L. T. (N. S) 598. (4) L. R. 2 Q. B. 114. (5) 12 C. B. (N. S.) 383. (6) 26 T. L. R. 419; [1910] 2 K B. 192. (7) [1892] 1 Q. B. (1) 9 Ir. L. R. 93. (2) 8 A. & E. 394. (3) 4 A. & E. 498. (4) 12 A. & E. 599. (5) 2 Vent. 22. (6) 28 L. R. Ir. 440. (7)......
-
The King v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal ex parte Shaw
... ... Mr Themas Shaw was formerly Clerk to the West Northumberland Joint Hospital Board. He lost that office, ... If justices state more than they are bound to state, it may, so to ... ...
-
State (Kiernan), The v District Justice de Burca
...I. R. 358, at p. 386. (1) [1910] 2 I. R. 695, at p. 731. (2) [1898] 2 I. R. 694. (3) [1909] 2 K.B. 748. (4) 10 B & S. 111, 117. (5) [1910] 2 K. B., p. 192. (6) [1892] 1 Q. B. pp. 375-378. (7) 45 L. J. (M. C.) 95. (1) 70 I. L. T. R. 185. (1) Before Maguire C.J. , Lavery , Kingsmill Moore , Ó......
-
The King (Corcoran) v The Justices of Wicklow
...L.C.J., Palles, C.B., and Gibson, J. (1) 2 New Ir. Jur. Rep. 174. (2) Ibid. 175. (3) [1892] 1 Q. B. 371. (4) 64 L. J. M. C. 200. (5) [1910] 2 K. B. 192. (1) 12 L. R. Ir. (2) [1910] 2 I. R. 306. (3) [1905] 2 I. R. 318. (4) [1908] 2 I. R. 285. (1) [1892] 1 Q. B. 371. ...