[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> BJ, R (on the application of) v Governing Body of a School [2005] EWHC 3392 (Admin) (19 July 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/3392.html Cite as: [2005] EWHC 3392 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		19th July 2005

1. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: This is an expedited hearing pursuant to permission granted by Wilkie J on 19 May 2005. Wilkie J ordered that the claimant be known as "J" and the interested party as "B". I shall refer to the school where they are both on roll as "the school".
2. On 3 February 2005, J, a year 10 pupil at the school, was assaulted by B. B struck J repeatedly with an iron bar. J suffered a fractured skull and a wound requiring 21 stitches. B has pleaded guilty to an offence under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. B's actions went beyond anything that could be justified by way of self defence. On 24 February 2005 the Head decided permanently to exclude B from school. B's parents were notified accordingly.
3. On 15 March 2005 a meeting of a three-member panel of the school's governing body was convened. By a majority they decided to reinstate B. That is the decision now under challenge. J has been withdrawn by his parents from attending the school since that date. The governing body concedes that the reinstatement decision should not be allowed to stand. They do so on grounds that include, but are not confined, to the fact that the panel departed from statutory guidance without giving any reason for doing so. Indeed, no reasons whatsoever were given for the decision at the time or since. J seeks an order quashing the reinstatement decision and an order reinstating the Head's exclusion decision.
4. The governing body submits to an order that the reinstatement decision should be quashed and consents to an order that the matter be reconsidered by a differently constituted panel. J also consents to the reconsideration order; B, however, disputes the terms of the order.
5. I have no doubt that the governing body acted entirely responsibly and correctly in accepting that the panel's unreasoned decision was flawed. This was a case of serious violence against another pupil. Reinstatement in such circumstances has to be justified as an exceptional measure. The statutory guidance was disregarded. It is impossible, in my judgment, to say that if proper regard had been had to the guidance the outcome would have been the same. Neither do I regard there is any alternative remedy in terms of an injunction or undertakings.
6. B says any relief should be declaratory at best on the ground that undue hardship would otherwise be occasioned to him, including by the reopening of the matter. I disagree. The matters to which reference is made on behalf of the B are in many respects matters for the primary decision maker on a remission. The fresh panel will consider whether permanent exclusion would be unduly draconian. The relief to which the governing body and J consent is in my judgment entirely appropriate and I make an order accordingly.
7. MR SHELDON: There is one final matter. Both the claimant and interested party are legally assisted. I think we need to ask for detailed assessment of today's costs and to ask for costs against the interested party in any event for detailed assessment purposes.
8. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Yes. You want that as well, Mr Beaumont? On costs you are both legally aided, so there is no order as between party and party, but you each need your legal aid assessment?
9. MR BEAUMONT: Yes. I ask for leave to appeal.
10. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: I refuse that.
11. MR BEAUMONT: Would your Lordship hear me?
12. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Certainly, if you want to put forward argument.
13. MR BEAUMONT: With regard to alternative remedy, your Lordship indicated in the judgment in one sentence that there is no alternative remedy. In my submission, for the reasons I have indicated, there is and your Lordship has not provided reasons as to why there is no alternative remedy. Secondly, in relation to hardship, your Lordship has not dealt with the point I made. With respect, that process itself causes hardship. Your Lordship simply has not dealt with my main points at all, with respect. On that basis, I apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
14. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: I refuse permission.
15. MR SHELDON: There is just one matter to ensure that the order of the court replicated the order. It was agreed between the parties, in particular reference there to the costs of up until the agreement.
16. MR BEAUMONT: There should be a 3-page consent order. The relief sought is (1) that the decision be quashed; (2) that there be a new panel; and (3) that the defendant pay the costs of the claimant of and incidental to this application to be subject to detailed assessment. We have agreed that the costs of this application up until the date of the agreement.
17. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: After the word "application".
18. MR SHELDON: "Not to include the costs of this hearing".
19. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: Yes.
20. MR SHELDON: If that can be in the order my client will be satisfied.
21. THE DEPUTY JUDGE: I have written:

"It is not arguable that there was an alternative remedy in this case, nor that a further hearing would be such a hardship to the interested party that the claim should be denied a fresh hearing."

Thank you very much.