The claimant had been excluded from school after assaulting a younger pupil. Though his behaviour was found not to justify a permanent exclusion, re-instatement was not ordered because of fears of the psychological impact of his return, partiuclarly on his victim. He complained that having conducted a balancing exercise to decide the exclusion was not permanent, it was wrong to repeat the exercise on re-instatement.
Held: The court had to look to see if the process as a whole was fair. It was. It would have been bizarre for his re-instatement to be ordered without considering the effect on the victim only because the same head had been considered under permanent exclusion.
Bennett J
Times 11-Feb-2005
England and Wales
Education
Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.223353
