Lord Justice Edis
Lord Justice Edis :
By this appeal the appellant, “SAG”, seeks to challenge the dismissal of her claim for judicial review of a decision by the Governors’ Disciplinary Committee (“the GDC”) of the Winchmore School (“the School”) to uphold on reconsideration its earlier decision to refuse to reinstate her following a decision by the Headteacher of the School to exclude her permanently for misconduct. That earlier decision had been quashed by an Independent Review Panel (“IRP”). Mr. Neil Cameron KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, gave leave to bring the claim, but dismissed it. His reasoned judgment, [2025] EWHC 2117 (Admin), was handed down with commendable expedition within a week of the hearing. The appeal has also been expedited in order that SAG’s education can continue in the best way possible in the light of its outcome. Anonymity has been granted to SAG and to her litigation friend, ERG, who is her mother.
The School made a submission to the judge that judicial review should be refused in respect of the reconsideration decision because there was an alternative remedy, namely a further reference to an IRP. The judge rejected this challenge on grounds of statutory construction. There is no appeal against that decision and it is not necessary to say anything more about it.
- Heading
- Lord Justice Edis
- Introduction
- Permanent exclusion
- Reasons and recording exclusions
- Guidance on considering the reinstatement of a suspended or permanently excluded pupil
- Part twelve: The governing board’s duty to reconsider reinstatement following a review
- Guidance on the governing board’s duty to reconsider reinstatement following a review
- “Policy Statement
- “ Pupils are responsible for
- “Fixed term suspensions
- “Permanent exclusion
- The misconduct
- The exclusion decision
- The First GDC Decision, meeting on 3 March and letter of 6 March
- Panel deliberations
- Outcome from further discussions between the panel and the Headteacher
- The Independent Review Panel (IRP)
- Reasons for the panel's decision
- The panel's consideration of procedural impropriety
- The panel's consideration of the other grounds
- Points to consider upon reconsideration
- The GDC Reconsideration
- Permanent Exclusion 2 nd Limb Criteria
- Panel's Reconsidered decision
- The Grounds of Challenge that decision and the Grounds of Appeal to this court
- “The Grounds of Challenge
- The Grounds of Appeal (“the Grounds”) are as follows
- The judge’s judgment
- How should the Grounds of Appeal be understood?
- Discussion and analysis Introduction
- Ground 2: Lawful application of the Behaviour Policy
- Ground 3: the standard of review
- The finding that SAG committed burglary
- The unreasonable failure adequately to consider alternative sections
- Conclusions
![CA-2025-002133 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1335](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png)