The question was whether a school which was not that of parental choice could be regarded as suitable or, to put it the other way round, whether free transport had to be provided where a parent had chosen a school which was not the nearest to the child’s home and that choice had been accepted by the local education authority.
Held: ‘The County Council have two alternative points . . First they say that under s.39(2)(c) it is the arrangements that have to be suitable, not the school nearest home. Presumably they would say, in a case which involved either of the other two choices in that paragraph [i.e. what are now s.444(4)(b)(i) and (ii)] that the transport or the boarding accommodation does not have to be suitable, but only the arrangements. That argument appealed to Rose J in R v East Sussex CC ex p D [1991] 15 March (unreported) and to Jowitt J in the present case, but not to Roch J R v Rochdale Metropolitan BC ex p Schemet [1994] E.L.R. 89. It does not appeal to me. Arrangements for unsuitable transport, or unsuitable boarding accommodation or an unsuitable school nearer home, are in my judgment unsuitable arrangements. I cannot elaborate the point further than that’. Steyn LJ: ‘ . . In my view s.39(2)(c) . . contemplated that a local education authority is entitled to make arrangements for a child registered at one school to become a registered pupil at another suitable school nearer home . . An acceptance of the appellants’ argument would emasculate the local education authority’s power under s.39(2)(c) to nominate an objectively suitable school nearer the child’s home’. Russell LJ: ‘ . . I cannot believe that parliament intended that a parent could always demand free transport irrespective of the distance involved and irrespective of an equally suitable educational establishment nearer to the child’s home’.
Judges:
Staughton LJ, Steyn LJ and Russell LJ
Citations:
[1994] ELR 273
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Schemet QBD 1993
The court considered the withdrawal of a policy whereby the local authority paid travelling expenses for the attendance of pupils at denominational schools outside the area.
Held: Relief was granted. The authority should have consulted those . .
Cited by:
Cited – In Re S CA 1995
Parents wanted their children to attend English middle schools in Wales. The Court dealt with the argument that the objective suitability of the nearer school had to be considered by the court on judicial review. Alternatively, it was argued that it . .
Cited – Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Ceredigion County Council Admn 22-Jun-2004
The parents lawfully chose to send their child to a Welsh language school. The authority refused to provide free transport on the basis that a nearer school was available even though it was not a Welsh language school.
Held: Provided the . .
Cited – Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Ceredigion County Council Admn 22-Jun-2004
The parents lawfully chose to send their child to a Welsh language school. The authority refused to provide free transport on the basis that a nearer school was available even though it was not a Welsh language school.
Held: Provided the . .
Cited – Regina v Islington London Borough Council, ex parte G A (a Child) Admn 20-Oct-2000
The child was severely disabled and was to be schooled as a weekday boarder 75 miles from home. He sought assistance with the travelling expenses when his condition worsened and the arrangements became more burdensome.
Held: It was not open to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.199247
