COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(STANLEY BURNTON J)
London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE CLARKE
LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY
| ABDUL HAKIM ALI
|- and -
|THE HEAD TEACHER and GOVERNORS of LORD GREY SCHOOL
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Jonathan Moffett (instructed by Borough Solicitor, Bracknell Forest Borough Council ) for the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Sedley :
The structure of state education
The LEA's duties
"Each local education authority shall make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them."
In other words, it is the LEA's obligation to ensure that no child falls out of the education system, even if excluded from school. The content of this duty is amplified
by the provision of subsection (5) that any such child continues to be a pupil for all statutory purposes;
by the provision of subsection (6) that 'suitable education' means efficient education suitable to the pupil's age, ability and aptitude;
by Circular 11/99 which requires LEAs to ensure that temporarily excluded pupils are reintegrated where possible and educated meanwhile; and
by Circular 10/99, which reminds LEAs that the obligation to provide for the education of permanently excluded pupils reverts to them.
The school's duties
"Referral to Access Panel is requested as the Headteacher is not willing to negotiate transfer to another school at this stage given the circumstances and severity of the incident. If [A] is deemed to be innocent then the Headteacher will be willing to negotiate integration at that stage."
Phase 1: 9 March (informal exclusion) to 21 March (formal exclusion)
Phase 2: 22 March to 14 May (end of SATS examinations)
Phase 3: 15 May to 6 June (end of the 45-day period)
Phase 4: 7 June to 13 July (meeting at school)
Phase 5: 14 July to mid-October (removal from school roll)
Phase 6: mid-October to 21 January (enrolment at new school).
(a) that the initial exclusion was unlawful, having been neither permanent nor for a fixed period: "an indefinite temporary exclusion is not known to the law";
(b) that while the fixed periods of exclusion which followed from 21 March to 13 July had been reasonable in the prevailing circumstances, there had been a failure to notify A or his parents of the right to make representations about his exclusion to the governing body and the way to do it;
(c) that the governors, who had been duly notified of the exclusion, had failed in their independent duty to consider the exclusion at (if requested) an oral hearing and in any event to consider reinstating A;
(d) that the exclusion had become unlawful at the expiry of 45 days on 6 June in the absence of any lawful decision from that point either to exclude A for good or to permit him to return;
(e) that the continuing exclusion of A after 13 July was neither lawful nor reasonable;
(f) that his eventual removal from the school roll was unlawful because of the failure to make reasonable enquiry to locate A before deciding to remove him.
"apart from the failure to comply with its statutory obligations, the school's decision to exclude the Claimant until the termination of the prosecution and then until a reintegration meeting could be held was sensible and reasonable, and in my judgment does not give rise to liability for breach of article 2 of the First Protocol" (para.106).
"107 .In the circumstances, the only defence to the claim for damages for breach of Article 2 of the First Protocol is that appropriate educational facilities were nonetheless available to the Claimant but that either he chose not to avail himself of them or that the responsibility for the missed period of education was that of the LEA.
108. LEA had undertaken responsibility for the Claimant's education as a result of his exclusion. That responsibility arose under section 19(1) of the 1996 Act. It may be that the words "by reason of exclusion from school" should be read as referring to a lawful exclusion (although this would be contrary to the general rule that an unlawful administrative action is valid and effective unless and until it is quashed), but if so an unlawful exclusion is in my judgment within the expression "or otherwise". The LEA did not provide tuition for the Claimant because, as I have found, the family declined the offer of tuition. It follows that the school was not the cause of the Claimant's lack of suitable education between the 13 July and the end of the summer term.
109. The cause of the Claimant's lack of schooling or education during the autumn of 2001 is more complex to ascertain. There is no explanation for the family's failure to contact Mr Read or Jennifer Gurney [of the LEA], who were referred to in Ms Pavlou's letter of 13 July, until October. In addition, I find that until early November 2001 he and his family were uncertain whether they wanted him to return to The Lord Grey School: see, e.g., Mr Read's letter of 22 October. If that uncertainty was the result of the school's unreasonable or unlawful actions, it might be responsible for it. However, I have no evidence from the family as to whether it was caused by, for example, Ms Pavlou's letter of 13 July, or resulted from the fact that the Claimant had been accused of involvement in arson. Basit's [A's brother's] evidence, that at the meeting with Tim Read the family expressed their wish that [A] should return to The Lord Grey School, is inconsistent with Mr Read's letter and his evidence, and I reject it.
110. Furthermore, nothing had occurred to bring to an end the LEA's responsibility for the Claimant's education under section 19(1) of the 1996 Act. Although Mr Read said that he was unaware, during the autumn of 2001, that the Claimant was out of school, he and Ms Gurney and Mrs Barby had all been copied into the letter of 13 July 2001, from which it was apparent that he had not returned to The Lord Grey School, so that the section applied. It was the LEA's responsibility to provide suitable education for him.
111. It follows that there were educational facilities available to the Claimant. The evidence, which consists only of the cross-examination of Mr Read, does not justify a finding that if the Claimant had sought access to the tuition services of the Manor Road PRU, they would have been inadequate. Moreover, it must be the case that if the family had made contact with Mr Read (or, presumably, Ms Gurney) soon after receipt of Ms Pavlou's letter of 13 July 2001, the Claimant would have been admitted to another school much earlier, and possibly in time for the beginning of the autumn term.
112. In these circumstances, the Claimant has not proved that his lack of schooling in the autumn, prior to his father's letter of 6 November 2001, was caused by the school.
113. After the school had refused to permit the Claimant to return, on the ground that its roll was full, it continued to be the responsibility of the LEA (who were notified of the refusal by copy of the letter of 14 November 2001) to provide tuition pending the Claimant's admission to an alternative school.
114. It follows that, although the decisions to exclude the Claimant and to remove him from the roll were unlawful, and could have been challenged by judicial review, they did not give rise to a liability in damages for breach of his rights under Article 2 of the First Protocol." "
A. Is A entitled to damages under s.8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for
i. having been reasonably but unlawfully excluded from the school between 8 March and 13 July 2001;
ii. having been unreasonably and unlawfully excluded from the school from 14 July 2001 to 20 January 2002; or
iii. having been excluded from the school until mid-October 2001 when he was removed, albeit unlawfully, from the school roll?
B. If the answer to any of the above is positive, against whom does the claim lie? In particular, is the allocation of liability affected by A's removal from the school roll and, if so, what is the effect of its having been done unlawfully?
Absence and exclusion from school
"57. Parents of children of compulsory school age are under a duty to secure their suitable and efficient full-time education either by regular attendance at school or otherwise: section 7. If he is a registered pupil at a school, it is their duty to cause him to attend regularly: section 444(1). However, by subsection (3), a child shall not be taken to have failed to attend regularly by reason of his absence from the school-
"(a) with leave;
(b) at any time when he was prevented from attending by reasons of sickness or any unavoidable cause."
58. Leave of absence is the subject of the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulations 1995. Regulation 7 relates to the keeping of an attendance register, in which must be recorded the presence or absence of every pupil, and in the case of an absence, whether or not it is authorised. In the case of a pupil who is not a boarder, regulation 7(3) provides that an absence is to be treated as authorised for the purposes of that regulation if
"(a) he has been granted leave of absence in accordance with Regulation 8;
(b) he is unable to attend
(i) by reason of sickness or any unavoidable cause; "
59. Regulation 8 provides that leave of absence may only be granted by a person authorised on their behalf by the proprietor of the school. In the present case, the proprietors were the school governors; the person who was authorised to give leave of absence was the head teacher. There are restrictions on the granting of leave of absence for the purposes of enabling a pupil to undertake employment, or to go away on holiday, but otherwise the purpose of leave of absence is unspecified.
60. Removal from the school roll (i.e., deletion from the admission register of the school) is the subject of regulation 9. It prescribes the grounds on which the name of a pupil of compulsory school age must be deleted from the admission register. The only relevant paragraph of regulation 9(1) is (g):
"That (the pupil) has been continuously absent from school for a period of not less than 4 weeks and both the proprietor of the school and the Local Education Authority have failed, after reasonable enquiry, to locate the pupil; "
In addition, subparagraph (k) requires the deletion of a pupil from the admission register:
"Where the pupil is registered at a maintained school, that he has been permanently excluded from the school; "
However, subparagraph (k) is subject to regulation 9(4)(d):
"(d) the permanent exclusion of a pupil does not take effect until the governing body have discharged their duties under section 66 of the 1998 Act, and
(i) the relevant person has stated in writing that he does not intend to bring an appeal under section 67 of the 1998 Act;
(ii) the time for bringing an appeal has expired and no appeal has been brought within that time; or
(iii) an appeal brought within that time has been determined or abandoned."
61. Regulation 13 requires the proprietor of every school maintained by an LEA to make a return to the LEA of pupil absences other than absences due to sickness or leave of absence granted by the school in accordance with regulation 8. Lastly, regulation 14 requires entries on an admission register or attendance register to be written in ink and so that any corrections are apparent.
62. The division of responsibility between the governors of a school and the head teacher is the subject of the Education (School Government) (Terms of Reference) (England) Regulations 2000. As might be expected, they prescribe that:
"4(1) The governing body shall exercise their functions with the view to fulfilling a largely strategic role in the running of the school."
On the other hand:
"5(1) The head teacher shall be responsible for the internal organisation, management and control of the school, and the implementation of the strategic framework established by the governing body."
63. The exclusion of pupils is the subject of sections 64 to 68 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998:
"Power of head teacher to exclude pupils.
64.(1) The head teacher of a maintained school may exclude a pupil from the school for a fixed period or permanently.
(2) The head teacher may not exercise the power to exclude a pupil from the school for one or more fixed periods such that the pupil is so excluded for more than 45 school days in any one school year.
(3) A pupil may not be excluded from a maintained school (whether by suspension, expulsion or otherwise) except by the head teacher in accordance with this section.
(4) In this Act "exclude", in relation to the exclusion of a child from a school, means exclude on disciplinary grounds (and "exclusion" shall be construed accordingly).
Exclusion of pupils: duty to inform parents, etc.
65. - (1) Where the head teacher of a maintained school excludes any pupil, the head teacher shall (without delay) take reasonable steps to inform the relevant person of the following matters-
(a) the period of the exclusion (or, if the pupil is being permanently excluded, that he is being so excluded);
(b) the reasons for the exclusion;
(c) that he may make representations about the exclusion to the governing body, and
(d) the means by which such representations may be made.
(2) Where the head teacher decides that any exclusion of a pupil for a fixed period should be made permanent, he shall (without delay) take reasonable steps to inform the relevant person of-
(a) his decision, and
(b) the matters specified in paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1).
(3) Subsection (4) applies where the head teacher-
(a) excludes any pupil in circumstances where the pupil would, as a result of the exclusion-
(i) be excluded from the school for a total of more than five school days in any one term, or
(ii) lose an opportunity to take any public examination,
(b) excludes a pupil permanently, or
(c) decides that any exclusion of a pupil should be made permanent.
(4) Where this subsection applies, the head teacher shall (without delay) inform the local education authority and the governing body of the following matters-
(a) the period of the exclusion (or, if the pupil is being permanently excluded, that he is being so excluded), or
(b) his decision that any exclusion of a pupil for a fixed period should be made permanent,
and (in either case) of the reasons for it.
(5) In this section and in sections 66 and 67 "the relevant person" means-
(a) in relation to a pupil under the age of 18, a parent of his;
(b) in relation to a pupil who has attained that age, the pupil himself.
(6) Where regulations under paragraph 4 of Schedule 11 require the governing body of a maintained school to establish a discipline committee, references in this section and sections 66 to 68 to the governing body of such a school shall be construed as references to their discipline committee.
Functions of governing body in relation to excluded pupils.
66. - (1) Subsections (2) to (6) apply where the governing body of a maintained school are informed under section 65(4) of any exclusion or decision to which that provision applies.
(2) The governing body shall in any such case-
(a) consider the circumstances in which the pupil was excluded;
(b) consider any representations about the exclusion made to the governing body-
(i) by the relevant person in pursuance of section 65(1)(c) or (2)(b), or
(ii) by the local education authority;
(c) allow each of the following, namely-
(i) the relevant person, and
(ii) an officer of the local education authority nominated by the authority, to attend a meeting of the governing body and to make oral representations about the exclusion; and
(d) consider any oral representations so made.
(3) In a case where it would be practical for the governing body to give a direction to the head teacher requiring the reinstatement of a pupil, they shall in addition consider whether he should be reinstated immediately, reinstated by a particular date or not reinstated.
(4) If the governing body decide that the pupil should be reinstated, they shall forthwith-
(a) give the appropriate direction to the head teacher, and
(b) inform the relevant person and the local education authority of their decision.
(5) The head teacher shall comply with any direction of the governing body for the reinstatement of a pupil who has been excluded from the school.
(6) If the governing body decide that the pupil should not be reinstated, they shall forthwith-
(a) inform the relevant person, the head teacher and the local education authority of their decision, and
(b) in addition, in the case of a pupil who is permanently excluded, give the relevant person notice in writing referring to that decision and stating the following matters-
(i) the reasons for the decision,
(ii) his right to appeal against the decision,
(iii) the person to whom he should give any notice of appeal,
(iv) that any notice of appeal must contain the grounds of appeal, and
(v) the last date on which an appeal may be made.
(a) the head teacher of a maintained school excludes a pupil otherwise than as mentioned in section 65(3), and
(b) the governing body receive any representations made in pursuance of section 65(1)(c) or (2)(b) by the relevant person about the exclusion, they shall consider those representations.
(8) Regulations may provide that, where a governing body of a maintained school are required under this section to take any step, the duty must, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, be performed within the prescribed period; but such a provision shall not relieve the governing body of the duty to take any step which has not been taken within that period.
Appeals against exclusion of pupils.
67. - (1) A local education authority shall make arrangements for enabling the relevant person to appeal against any decision of the governing body under section 66 not to reinstate a pupil who has been permanently excluded from a school maintained by the authority.
(2) Schedule 18 has effect in relation to the making and hearing of appeals pursuant to arrangements made under subsection (1); and in subsections (3) and (4) "appeal panel" means an appeal panel constituted in accordance with paragraph 2 of that Schedule.
(3) The decision of an appeal panel on an appeal pursuant to arrangements made under subsection (1) shall be binding on the relevant person, the governing body, the head teacher and the local education authority.
(4) Where on such an appeal the appeal panel determines that the pupil in question should be reinstated, the panel shall either-
(a) direct that he is to be reinstated immediately, or
(b) direct that he is to be reinstated by a date specified in the direction.
Exclusion of pupils: guidance.
68. - (1) This section applies to any functions of-
(a) the head teacher or the governing body of a maintained school,
(b) a local education authority, or
(c) an appeal panel constituted in accordance with paragraph 2 of Schedule 18, conferred by or under any of sections 64 to 67 and Schedule 18.
(2) In discharging any such function, such a person or body shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State." "
64. The Secretary of State gave guidance in Circular 10/99. It has been amended since the times material to these proceedings. Paragraph 6.3 of the Circular stated:
"Before reaching a decision, the head teacher should:
- consider all the relevant facts and firm evidence to support the allegations made, and take into account the school's policy on equal opportunities. If there is doubt that the pupil actually did what is alleged the head teacher should not exclude the pupil;
- allow the pupil to give their (sic) version of events;
- check whether an incident appeared to be provoked by racial or sexual harassment;
- if necessary consult others, being careful not to involve anyone who may later take part in the statutory review of their decision, e.g. a member of the Discipline Committee."
65. Paragraph 6.4 stated that exclusion should not be used for, among other matters:
"Punishing pupils for the behaviour of the parents, for example by extending a fixed period of exclusion until the parents agree to attend a meeting."
66. Paragraph 6.5 was as follows:
"The law allows head teachers to exclude a pupil for up to 45 days in a school year. However, individual exclusions should be for the shortest time necessary, bearing in mind that exclusions of more than a day or two make it more difficult for the pupil to re-integrate into the school. In all cases of more than a day's exclusion, work should be set and marked." (emphasis as in original)
67. It is also necessary to refer to paragraphs 6.6 and 6.7:
"6.6 A decision to exclude a child permanently is a serious one. It is a final step in the process for dealing with disciplinary offences when a wide range of other strategies have been tried and have failed, including the use of a Pastoral Support Programme. It is also an acknowledgement by the school that it can no longer cope with the child. The Secretary of State does not expect a head teacher normally to exclude permanently a pupil for a 'one-off' or first offence.
6.7 A head teacher considering excluding a pupil for a single block of more than 15 school days in a term must plan:
- to enable the pupil to continue their education;
- how to use the time to address the pupil's problems; and
- with the LEA, what educational arrangements will best help the pupil to re-integrate into the school at the end of the exclusion. The school will usually be expected to meet some of the costs for this but the exact arrangements will need to be agreed with the LEA." (emphasis as in original)
68. Annex D to Circular 10/99 dealt with procedures for excluding a pupil. Under the heading "Responsibilities of the head teacher" and "Informing parents about the exclusion", it stated:
"1. A head teacher who excludes a pupil should make sure the parent is notified immediately, ideally by telephone, and that the telephone call is followed by a letter within one school day. An exclusion should normally begin on the next school day.
2. Letters about fixed period and permanent exclusions should explain:
- why the head teacher decided to exclude the pupil and the steps taken to try and avoid exclusion;
- the arrangements for enabling the pupil to continue their education, including setting and marking the pupil's work;
- the parent's right to state their case to the Governing Body's Discipline Committee;
- who the parents should contact if they wish to state their case (usually the Clerk to the Committee);
- the latest date the parent can put a written statement to the Discipline Committee;
- the parent's right to see their child's school record;
- if the exclusion is for a fixed period, the length of the exclusion and the date and time the pupil should return to school;
- if the exclusion is for lunchtimes only, the length of the exclusion (normally no more than five school days) and the arrangements for providing a meal for any pupil entitled to free school meals;
- if the exclusion is permanent, the date the permanent exclusion takes effect, and details of any relevant previous warnings, fixed period exclusions or other disciplinary measures taken before the present incident;
- the name and telephone number of a contact at the LEA who can provide advice on the exclusions process and the telephone number for the Advisory Centre for Education (ACE) helpline
All correspondence should be in plain English and avoid unnecessary jargon. Exclusion cases should be treated in the strictest confidence.
3. A head teacher who extends a fixed period exclusion or, exceptionally, converts a fixed period exclusion into a permanent exclusion, should again write to the parent explaining the reasons and making the other points above. Where an exclusion is extended there is a new right for the parent to state their case to the Discipline Committee." (emphasis as in original)
69.Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Annex D were as follows:
"4. The head teacher should inform the Governing Body's Discipline Committee and the LEA immediately of:
- all permanent exclusions;
- all exclusions which result, separately or in total, in the pupil missing more than five school days in any one term, or which deny pupils the chance to take a public examination.
Short fixed period exclusions of one to five school days should be reported termly, unless the LEA asks for more frequent reports.
5. For each exclusion reported the school should give:
- the name of the pupil;
- the length of the exclusion;
- the reason(s) for the exclusion;
- the pupil's age, gender, ethnicity, and whether they are on the SEN Code of Practice or have a statement of special educational needs;
- whether the pupil is looked after by the Local Authority."
70. Paragraph 6 of Annex D stated that the Governing Body should set up a Discipline Committee to review the use of exclusion. Paragraph 7 was as follows:
"7. If the exclusion is fewer than 5 days, the Discipline Committee cannot direct re-instatement, but should consider any statement from the parent. For exclusions of more than five days in a term, or where a pupil loses the opportunity to take a public examination, the Discipline Committee should consider the exclusion and decide whether the pupil should be reinstated."
71. Annex D required the clerk to the Discipline Committee, on receiving notice from the head teacher that a pupil has been excluded for more than 5 days, to set up a meeting of the Discipline Committee to consider the exclusion within specified time limits, and take other preliminary procedural steps.
72. Chapter 6 and Annex D of Circular 10/99 were replaced with effect from January 2003, after, therefore, the events in question in these proceedings. Paragraph 11.1 of Part 1, dealing with decisions to exclude, is as follows:
"A reintegration meeting with parents following the expiry of a fixed period exclusion is good practice. However, a fixed period exclusion should not be extended if such a meeting cannot be arranged in time or the parents do not attend."
A new Part 5 is entitled "Police Involvement and Parallel Criminal Proceedings". It had no counterpart in the earlier circular. It included the following statement:
"1.1 A school-related incident may sometimes also be the subject of a police investigation which may subsequently result in criminal proceedings. This can mean that the evidence available to head teachers, Discipline Committees and Independent Appeal Panels is very limited. They may not, for example, be able to hear relevant witnesses or to consider relevant material; it may not be known whether a criminal charge is to be brought; if a charge has been brought, the eventual outcome of any court proceedings may be uncertain."
Under the heading: "Head teacher's decision to exclude and consideration of the circumstances by the Discipline Committee" are the following statements:
"2.1 A head teacher should not postpone his or her decision to permanently exclude a pupil simply because of the possibility that criminal proceedings might be brought in respect of the same incident. In these circumstances, a judgment must be made on the basis of the evidence available. Relevant considerations include the fact that:
a) a serious allegation has been made against the pupil by another pupil or member of staff at the school which is the subject of a police investigation which may result in criminal proceedings being brought
b) pending the conclusion of any such criminal proceedings, the pupil's continued presence in the school may have an adverse effect on the complainant and other potential witnesses, and on the promotion of good order and discipline at the school generally."
The human rights issues
(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
(3) In this section "public authority" includes
(a) a court or tribunal, and
(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,
but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.
(5) In relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of subsection (3)(b) if the nature of the act is private.
(6)"An act" includes failure to act but does not include failure to
(a) introduce in, or lay before, Parliament a proposal for legislation; or
(b) make any primary legislation or remedial order.
(1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may
(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or
(b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings.
(3) If the proceedings are brought on an application for judicial review, the applicant is to be taken to have sufficient interest in relation to the unlawful act only if he is, or would be, a victim of that act
(5) Proceedings under subsection (1)(a) must be brought before the end of-
(a) the period of one year beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place; or
(b) such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances,
but that is subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question.
(1) In relation to any act (or proposed act) of a public authority which the court finds is (or would be) unlawful, it may grant such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its powers as it considers just and appropriate.
(2) But damages may be awarded only by a court which has power to award damages, or to order the payment of compensation, in civil proceedings.
(3) No award of damages is to be made unless, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, including-
(a) any other relief or remedy granted, or order made, in relation to the act in question (by that or any other court), and
(b) the consequences of any decision (of that or any other court) in respect of that act,
the court is satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the person in whose favour it is made.
(4) In determining-
(a) whether to award damages, or
(b) the amount of an award,
the court must take into account the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the award of compensation under Article 41 of the Convention.
(6) In this section-
"court" includes a tribunal;
"damages" means damages for an unlawful act of a public authority; and
"unlawful" means unlawful under section 6(1).
ECHR First Protocol
Right to education
No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.
A public authority
"Factors to be taken into account include the extent to which in carrying out the relevant function a body is publicly funded, or is exercising statutory powers, or is taking the place of central government or local authorities, or is providing a public service."
The Convention right
Reasonableness and illegality
Phases 1 and 2
Phases 5 and 6
The local education authority
Lord Justice Clarke:
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P.: