School Attendance Proceedings
| DOI | 10.1177/002201834500900407 |
| Published date | 01 October 1945 |
| Date | 01 October 1945 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
School Attendance Proceedings
THE
EDUCATION
ACT 1944, S. 39
THE
PROSECUTION'S
CASE
IT
lies
upon
the
Prosecution
to
prove
:-
(1)
That
the
defendant
is
the
parent
of
the
child (see
meaning
of
parent-so
114) ;
(2)
That
the
child is of compulsory school age (see
meaning-so
114
and
S.S.
(5) ) ;
(3)
That
the
child is a registered
pupil
at
aschool (see
meaning-so
114) ;
(4)
That
the
child
has
failed
to
attend
regularly.
The
question of
the
method
of proof of
points
(1), (2)
and
(3)
appears
to
be a
matter
of some difficulty.
With
regard
to
point
(2),
it
is
to
be observed
that
the
old
presumption
as to age contained in s. 141 of
the
Educa-
tion
Act
1921 is
not
repeated,
and
that
there
is no provision
taking
the
place of S. 140 of
that
Act, which
gave
the
court
power to require
production
of
the
child.
The
child will
not
now be in
court
at
all (unless
brought
as a witness
by
Prosecution
or Defence),
and
evidence based on
the
appear-
ance of
the
child will be no longer
normally
available
to
the
court
unless
the
child is
summoned
as a witness.
The
provisions of s. 95
(1)
of
the
Act
of 1944 enabling
the
court
to
presume
age
are
only
available if all
reasonable diligence
to
obtain
evidence as to age has
been
used
without
result.
The
Prosecution
must
therefore endeavour to provide
evidence of age
by
legal
method
of proof.
The
provisions of s. 94
(1)
of
the
Act
as to
birth
certifi-
cate
will be observed,
but
it
is
pointed
out
that
a
birth
certificate is useless
without
proof of
identity,
and
this
may
be difficult to obtain.
It
is
anticipated
that
in
many
cases
similarity
of names
and
addresses
might
establish
identity
to
the
satisfaction of
the
court,
but
that
there
would be
many
cases where
it
would be
very
difficult to establish
identity
in
the
ordinary
way.
The
evidence of
the
parents
would
not
be available,
and
great
difficulty
might
be
304
SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
PROCEEDINGS
305
experienced in establishing
the
identity
of a child named in
acertificate (possibly
not
born
locally) with achild who is
the
subject of proceedings.
Evidence of
treatment
is, however, admissible to
establish
identity
(Phipson on Evidence,
8th
Ed., p. 336),
and
in default of available evidence
by
someone present
at
the
birth
and
able
to
recognise
the
child,
the
fact
that
authorities,
after
careful enquiry,
had
been satisfied of
the
identity
of
the
child, if available in evidence in proper
form, would assist in establishing
identity
(R. v Bellis,
6 Cr.
App.
R. 283).
If,
therefore,
it
could be proved
that
in accepting achild as a pupil
the
managers of a school
had
after
proper enquiry satisfied themselves as to
the
identity
of
the
child with
the
child named in a
birth
certificate
produced to
the
court,
and
that
the
child
had
been
treated
by
the
school authorities as
the
child named in
the
certifi-
cate, this
might
be
proper
and
sufficient evidence to estab-
lish identity.
It
is
not
anticipated, however,
that
this
evidence could easily be given orally in a satisfactory
manner,
and
there
may
be a simpler
method
of establishing
the
age of
the
child.
The
admission
by
the
parent
before
court
proceedings
(but
not
in
court
on a plea of
Not
Guilty) would be proper
evidence, provided
that
it
was obtained
under
caution if
court
proceedings were
contemplated;
but
this again is
not
regarded as a
very
satisfactory
method
of proof.
It
may
be
doubted
whether
it
should be seriously
contemplated
that
the
Act
indicates
the
necessity of pro-
duction of a
birth
certificate in all cases,
and
the
necessity
of looking for a simpler
method
of proof becomes more
apparent
when one considers
point
(1)
as
to
the
defendant's
being
the
parent
of
the
child.
This again requires proof of identity,
and
while simil-
arity
of names
and
addresses
may
again be sufficient in
many
cases,
it
will be necessary in others to seek for
other
evidence, such as admissions
by
the
defendant,
and
circum-
stantial
evidence of witnesses who could give evidence of a
common household
and
common
treatment.
It
is considered, however,
that
the
Education
Act's
provisions as
to
school
attendance
proceedings do
not
normally
contemplate
the
introduction of a mass of evidence
to establish identity,
and
may
have
had
in
mind
asimpler
u
To continue reading
Request your trial