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

“Permanent exclusion

Permanent exclusions is the ultimate sanction and will only be considered in cases of serious persistent and on-going disruption or in cases of extremely serious one-off incidents.

Serious acts of violence, drug misuse (which includes vaping and being in possession of vapes/illegal substances) or acts of violence that involve a weapon, will result in a recommendation for suspension or permanent exclusion.”

The Behaviour Policy therefore provides that fixed-term suspensions were available for “serious incidents”, but permanent exclusion was available for “extremely serious incidents” where there was a “one-off” incident. This was a “one-off incident”, although it will be necessary to say something further about SAG’s disciplinary record below.

Mr Paul Greatorex, who appeared for the respondent, submitted that Mr Ollie Persey, who appeared for SAG, was concentrating on the “wrong policy”, in that he relied on the Behaviour Policy and did not refer to the Exclusions and Suspensions Policy. In my judgment they need to be read together, as the Exclusions and Suspensions Policy expressly refers to the Behaviour Policy. It appears that SAG’s case has varied over time in some respects, but Mr Persey accepted in answer to questions from the court that SAG’s conduct (described below) was “serious”, but submitted that it was not “extremely serious”. Mr Greatorex suggested that this had never been stated before. In reality, this did not matter very much because, whether she accepted it or not, it is quite apparent that the misconduct was at least “serious”, and the question was whether it was so serious (“extremely serious” is the phrase in the Behaviour Policy) that a permanent exclusion was justified and required. The Exclusions and Suspensions Policy is silent on the criteria to be applied in taking this decision, and generally treats fixed-term suspension and permanent exclusion together. The Behaviour Policy in contrast does identify the approach to be taken when considering whether a permanent exclusion is appropriate rather than a fixed term suspension. I consider therefore that given the decision which was before the Headteacher and then the GDC, the Behaviour Policy is the more important of the two documents. Further, and importantly, it is the Behaviour Policy which is mentioned in the Headteacher’s exclusion letter. I do not accept Mr Greatorex’s criticism of the appellant’s case in this respect.