CA-2025-002133 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1335

How should the Grounds of Appeal be understood?

The Grounds do not take the judge’s decisions on each Challenge and set out what is said to have been wrong with them. They make three complaints of legal error without tying them to any part of the judge’s reasoning. It seems to me that Ground 1, which complains of the finding that SAG had committed burglary, is capable of being relevant to the judge’s decision on the first and second Challenges before him. Ground 2 is a general challenge to the GDC’s application of what I have called “the second limb” in paragraph 11 of the Guidance. The error in relation to burglary is capable of being relevant to that, but other facts may also contribute to that contention. Ground 3 complains that although the judge said he was applying a “heightened standard of review” he did not in fact do so. That is capable of being relevant to the judge’s decisions on all three Challenges.

In giving permission to appeal on 5 September, Phillips LJ said “the permanent exclusion from school of a 14 year old, for a single non-violent incident whilst on a school trip abroad, seems harsh and amounts to a compelling reason to hear the appeal” and ordered a substantial degree of expedition “to enable the applicant to re-commence school early this term if the appeal is successful.” The point of reciting this here is to show how the judge giving permission read, in particular, Grounds 2 and 3. The suggested “harshness” of the penalty, in the context of this judicial review claim and appeal, finds its way into an assessment of the proportionality of the sanction. The proportionality of the sanction was at the heart of the decision to exclude and the decision not to reinstate and may arguably have arisen from a failure lawfully to apply the Behaviour Policy (Ground 2) and the failure to review the proportionality of the sanction decision with an appropriate level of scrutiny (Ground 3). Challenge 3 attacked the failure to consider alternatives to permanent exclusion, which is involved in that question. The parties have had sight of that decision since 5 September and have had an opportunity to prepare accordingly, in the light of the reason why permission to appeal was granted. They, in particular Mr. Greatorex on behalf of the School, have been required to work quickly and I am grateful to them, and particularly to him, for doing so.