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

Panel deliberations

The Chair stated that he was satisfied that the Headteacher's decision had been based on one single serious incident. The Pack set out the events of the day of the incident and there was no question that they had taken place and the facts were accepted. The Chair noted that the parents and Local Authority (LA) had been informed at the right time. The LA had provided its statement which the Chair considered. Subject to any comments from the other members of the panel, the Chair was therefore satisfied that the decision by the Headteacher had been lawful.

The other members of the panel agreed. They felt that the Headteacher had a duty to consider staff and pupils' welfare.

Regarding whether the process had been fair, the Panel noted that school staff had tried to engage with [SAG] regarding offering counselling and support in recognition of her emotional well-being and mental health.

Having carefully taken in to account all the available information and additional comments noted during the meeting, the panel were satisfied that the decision to permanently exclude had been lawful and procedurally fair. However, the panel had concerns regarding whether the sanction of permanent exclusion was proportionate given [SAG]’s personal circumstances and her overall school record and behaviour points. The panel also questioned whether the school case had fully met the requirements of the definition of the circumstances when a permanent exclusion can be made. The first part of this guidance states that it could be made "in response to a single serious breach or persistent breaches of the school's behaviour policy." The panel were satisfied that the incident involving had been such a one off serious breach. However, the second part of the guidance states that and" where allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others such as staff or pupils in the school."

The panel did not believe that the behaviour or conduct of in the incident had shown any evidence of physical assault, violence or aggression or threat to staff or other pupils, or any other conduct which could be considered to present a safeguarding risk. However, the panel did question whether allowing to return to school would send the wrong message and indicate that governors had condoned poor behaviour.

The panel also questioned what behaviour support plans would be needed to support [SAG] and monitor [SAG]'s behaviour along with working with the Mother and counselling services and how the school would manage this. In view of the above, the panel questioned whether permanent exclusion was the correct sanction and whether the school could have considered alternative sanctions and support for [SAG].

For this reason, the panel's initial view was not to uphold the school's decision to permanently exclude from school, but would hold further discussions with [the Headteacher] to discuss possible alternative integration strategies to allow [SAG] to return to school.

Clerk's note: the meeting ended at 12.45 pm.