The Borough appealed against acquittal by the magistrates of the defendant parent accused of failure to ensure the regular attendance of their child at school. The child had attended only irregularly. The parents had contacted the school and authorities and sought help and co-opertaed with the Borough, but their daughter had been unco-operative and eventually abusive.
Held: The appeal failed. The very strict nature of the offence under section 444(1) is and has for some considerable time been considered of great importance to support the duty placed by section 7 of the Education Act 1996 upon parents. However, the case of Barnfather had emphasised the need for the use of discretion by authorities. It may have been proper to bring proceedings before the magistrates, but it should have been obvious that the appeal had no prospects of success and could only cause further distress for the family involved. In essence this was a question of fact, and the court had rejected the evidence of the Education Welfare Officer.
The court considered whether, the parents having been found not guilty of the greater offence, the magistrates should have convicted them under the lesser offence, saying: ‘ It is important to stress that the public interest often requires that a person charged with a more serious offence should, if that is not made out, nonetheless be convicted of the lesser offence, if that is made out. The interests of justice are not served by acquittals in such circumstances. However, the test is the interests of justice.’ The matter should not be remitted.
Judges:
Thomas LJ, Fulford J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 2876 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Barnfather v London Borough of Islington Education Authority, Secretary of State for Education and Skills QBD 7-Mar-2003
The appellant was convicted of the crime of being a parent whose child had failed to attend school regularly. She challenged saying that the offence required no guilty act on her part, but was one of strict liability, and contrary to her human . .
Cited – Regina v Fairbanks CACD 1986
The defendant complained that the judge had not left an alternate verdict of careless driving to the jury where he had been charged with driving a motor vehicle on the road recklessly.
Held: The conviction was quashed.
Mustill LJ said: . .
Cited – Regina v Maxwell CACD 1988
The defendant admitted paying two others to burgle his partner’s home, but said he had not anticipated violence, and appealed against his conviction for robbery, saying the judge should have left the alternative verdict to the jury. The jury, during . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education, Criminal Practice
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226907