Outcome from further discussions between the panel and the Headteacher
Outcome from further discussions between the panel and the Headteacher
In a genuine attempt to be fair and reasonable to all the parties involved in, or affected by, this incident, and without prejudice to the Headteacher's decision, the panel further debated the advocate's suggestion, i.e whether alternative sanctions, other than permanent exclusion, could prove to be proportionate.
However, in investigating possible sanctions singly or in groups such as conditions measures constituting a further 'probation' the panel concluded that in practice they would be unenforceable, and or if the student failed to comply with the conditions there was no legitimate mechanism to revert back to the current permanent exclusion decision, and therefore no alternative sanction that would allow the student to stay at Winchmore while also respecting governors' obligation to support the welfare of the staff and other students.
From the above, it was agreed that allowing to remain at Winchmore School after such a serious incident would set a very dangerous precedent in that she entered a staff member's private space in search of a confiscated item in a room which contained the confidential information regarding all students and staff on the trip and personal belongings.
The panel agreed that this represented a breakdown in trust between the school and [SAG],so significant that it would have a detrimental effect on the school community and the safe and secure working environment of staff were she to be allowed to return to school.
The panel believed that in conjunction with paragraphs (e) and (f) above, these points have covered the 'And" part of the guidance referred to in paragraph (c) above.
The panel's final decision was therefore to uphold the decision to permanently exclude
The Chair would prepare the decision letter and the Clerk would draft the Minutes of the meeting.
Clerk's note: the meeting ended at 12.45 pm
It is clear that there were discussions with the Headteacher following the “initial view” being formed, but the clerk has not recorded anything which he said.
- 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)