AC-2024-LON-001202 and AC-2024-LON-001207 - [2025] EWHC 2810 (Admin)

Fecha: 31-Oct-2025

Ground 4: the Fresh Evidence ground

Ground 4: the Fresh Evidence ground

61.

In the Appellants’ skeleton argument, reference was made to various matters said to constitute “fresh evidence”. In particular, letters from Brent Council and the Department for Education to MD between February and June 2019 are relied upon to show “the authorities advised modification of hours not closure.” There is an application to adduce this evidence under CPR 52.21(2)(b) on the basis that it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence and is decisive.

62.

At the hearing, however, and for the first time, the Appellants suggested that all of the material which they sought to adduce had been material that they had asked to be included in the bundles for the PCP, but that this has not been done. In response I was shown letters of 30 October 2023 sent to MD and SF informing them what documents were to be included in the hearing bundle and asking what further documents they wished to include. It is clear both forwarded a substantial number of documents which appear in the PCP bundles, described as “Teacher Documents”, together with their written representations. I was referred to an email stating that MD had sent her documents by post. I can see no basis on which some but not all of the documents requested by MD and SF would have been placed before the PCPs, and I therefore reject that suggestion.

63.

As to the material itself:

There is a letter from Brent Council dated 13 February 2019 to ACE referring to the 12 December 2018 inspection and advising that running an unregulated school is a criminal offence. The letter refers to engagement between ACE and Brent’s Education Welfare Officer for Supplementary Schools and states, “should you decide to modify your activities and operate [ACE] as a supplementary school” please arrange a meeting with that officer. In response, MD wrote denying that ACE was operating an unregulated school.

ii)

There is a letter from the Department for Education to MD dated 7 June 2019 referring to the Ofsted inspection of 5 and 6 March 2019 (and therefore sent after the period with which the misconduct charges were concerned). This confirmed that at the time of the 12 December 2018 inspection, the inspectors had reasonable cause to believe an unregistered school was being operated, and served warning notices accordingly, but had not reached a final conclusion to that effect.

iii)

MD’s response repeated the suggestion (rejected by the Chief Magistrate to the criminal standard of proof) that the hours of the school had been cut back so as to only operate for any pupil for half the day after the 12 December 2018 inspection.

iv)

There are also letters from the Department for Education of 22 March and 5 April 2019.

64.

There are three reasons why this Ground cannot assist the Claimants:

First, there is no attempt to explain why the documents could not have been placed before the PCPs (assuming they were not). The documents were sent to MD (and in one case to SF), who must have been aware of them. It is not clear whether they were deployed in the criminal proceedings, but, if not, that was the decision made by the Appellants and their legal representatives. MD and SF were jointly represented in the criminal proceedings, and advanced a common strategy before their PCPs. There is no basis on which the Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 principles could be satisfied.

ii)

Second, MD did place the Department for Education letter of 7 June 2019 and MD’s response, and the letter of 22 March 2019, before the PCP.

iii)

Third, the material does not assist the Appellants, being entirely consistent with (and indeed corroborative of) the prosecution case against the Appellants. The letter from Brent Council dated 13 February 2019 confirms the warning ACE was given following the 12 December 2018 inspection that operating an unregulated school was a criminal offence. The letter from the Department for Education also confirms the earlier warning. MD’s response was that ACE was now only operating as a supplementary school, with its hours reduced accordingly. This was a self-serving statement, reflecting the defence run before the Chief Magistrate, which was rejected on convincing grounds, and also rejected on appeal.