First-tier Tribunal (Health Education and Social Care Chamber)

The Tribunal Procedure Rules (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care) Rules 2008

Heard at: Competition Tribunal Bloomsbury Square

Monday 3^rd December 2012

Before

Deputy Chamber President Judge John Aitken

Tribunal Judge John Burrow

Specialist Member Ms Linda Redford

Chrysolyte Independent Christian School

-v-

Secretary of State

[2012] 1999.IS

Decision

1. Chrysolyte School is an Independent School registered for children aged 2 to 14. There are 31 children on the role as at the date of the application. There is a Police Investigation related to physical abuse of children at the school, the Proprietors of the school were arrested in July and August, and two teachers in September 2012. All were initially bailed not to attend the school, but the Proprietors are now allowed to attend provided that they are not with children unsupervised.
   
   
2. The Secretary of State determined that there was a risk of serious harm to the welfare of pupils and on 22^nd October 2012 issued a determination that the school should close under Section 166(2) of the Education Act 2002, the effect of that determination is suspended if an Appellant files an Appeal, which was done on 25^th October 2012. On 20^th November 2012 the Secretary of State made an application under Section 166(5) to have the school treated as removed from the register. That is the application before us. 
   
   
3. The allegations made concerning the school are the use of rulers and other items to inflict corporal punishment, and the use of stress positions such as sitting in imaginary chairs. There is a further concern of the Secretary of State that although on bail with conditions as described above, Mrs Ikiebe was seen to be in the communal areas of the school alone, and whilst she was not with children unsupervised, the potential for this to happen was high.
   
   
4. Since the alleged incidents a number of new staff have been recruited, CCTV has been partially installed within the classrooms, the Principal of another school has agreed to act as Deputy Head Teacher on a full time basis (she was on sabbatical) and Mrs Ikiebe has assured us in evidence that neither she nor her husband will visit the main school buildings, instead confining themselves to the Solomon building, which is an administrative block. There is a lockable door between the two which will prevent any child entering accidentally. 
   
   
5. Mr Greatorex on behalf of the Secretary of State submitted that the proposals were hasty, and did not meet the clear risk which was established. Little was known of Mrs Wilson, the CCTV installation was incomplete and there were no proposals relating to storage or monitoring of the footage.
   
   
6. Mr Hyam argued that the proposals were the best that could be done in the limited time, and they did offer the necessary protection for the children at the school.
   
   
7. We have to consider firstly whether there is a risk of serious harm to the children at the school. The evidence was that the Police have received a number of broadly similar allegations which have been recorded as interviews on tape and which are likely to stand as evidence in chief in any prosecution, and that scarring and injury were present tending to support at least one of the those allegations and there are admissions as to stress positions made by the proprietors. In addition there was evidence of a similar history. We consider that left as it was there was undoubtedly a risk of serious harm, of course not limited to physical harm which the children at the school might suffer.
   
   
8. We have assumed that Mrs Ikiebe when she gave evidence before us was sincere in telling us that the CCTV work would be completed very shortly, that she understood that she must not stray for any reason into the main block of the school when children were known to be present or could be and that Mrs Wilson is an eminently suitable person (We know she is the Principal of the Tabernacle School, but we know relatively little about her length in that post or other experience and qualifications for example).
   
   
9. We have also born in mind the potential disruption to the lives of these children, many of whom are said to be happy and content at the school were the school to close even before the allegations are established. We are of course mindful that the Appellants would suffer greatly financially if the school were to close, and if the allegations were not then proved might be regarded as a seriously wronged.
   
   
10. We consider overall that the arrival of staff who are not said to have been involved in any of the alleged behaviours, the CCTV recording, and the presence of another School Principal with the Proprietors themselves not having access to the children is a sufficient protection for the children at the school during this interim phase whilst the validity of the allegations is tested. We have made that decision on the basis that if any of the measures indicated by Mrs Ikiebe are not brought into effect fully or disregarded in any way that there is likely to be a further application by the Secretary of State. Who of course has access through Ofsted to inspect the school.
    
    
11. The Secretary of State was undoubtedly correct to make this application. We make no findings as to what the facts are of the underlining allegations, however until galvanised by the threat of immediate closure there was plainly a risk of serious harm given the apparent evidence in existence. However, we consider that the present proposals do sufficient to remove that apparent risk.
    
    

Decision

The application of the Secretary of State is refused.

Judge John Aitken

Deputy Chamber President

Health Education and Social Care Chamber

5^th December 2012