Three pupils were excluded after a finding of theft. On appeal the second child to be heard was not told what had been said by the first to be heard. The first was allowed back into the school, but not the applicant.
Held: The Act showed that the child should be given a fair hearing, for which it was necessary to know the case against him. Neither the principles nor details of the PACE rules applied, but they remained a useful test of fairness and improper pressure. The procedure used was deemed unfair because the school appeared to have placed reliance upon what had been said by the first boy, and that therefore the second had not been allowed to hear the basis for the decision, and to answer allegations which might have been made.
Morritt LJ, Brooke LJ, Sedley LJ
Gazette 27-Jan-2000, Times 03-Feb-2000, [2000] ELR 156
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Governors of Dunraven School, Ex Parte B (A Child) QBD 24-Sep-1999
The school investigated allegations of theft and expelled the child. The independent appela panel rejected the appeal. The child’s parents sought a judicial review because of the way the investigation had been handled.
Held: A school enquiring . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (on the Application of Edwards) v Head Teacher of Whitton High School and Others Admn 2-Nov-2001
The applicant’s son had been excluded from the respondent’s school. She sought judicial review of the decision in that insufficient reasons had been given, and the hearing unfair at the Independent Appeal Tribunal. The son was subject to a statement . .
Appealed to – Regina v Governors of Dunraven School, Ex Parte B (A Child) QBD 24-Sep-1999
The school investigated allegations of theft and expelled the child. The independent appela panel rejected the appeal. The child’s parents sought a judicial review because of the way the investigation had been handled.
Held: A school enquiring . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education, Natural Justice
Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.85285