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

Permanent Exclusion 2^nd Limb Criteria

With regard to paragraphs 20 and 21 of the IRP letter, and as the criteria for meeting the first limb were not disputed, governors referred to their assessment of the underlying reasons for meeting the criteria for the second limb of the PEX decision.

The panel had re-examined all the paperwork submitted to date from all parties. In conclusion, they were satisfied that having considered all the available evidence and the risks posed to other students, staff and the wider school community by returning to school, that the second limb criteria had been met.

This was based on the incident representing a serious breach of trust between the pupil, her Mother, the school, other students, and the wider school community. The investigation had shown that [SAG] had lied to both her Mother, regarding not bringing a SIM card with her, and school staff regarding having removed the SIM card from the phone and blaming other students for taking the room key, then subsequently been found with the key on her person.

In re-examining all the original documentation which had been circulated to all parties, the panel had re-considered the risks to other students, staff and the wider school community, relating to allowing [SAG] to return to school. In considering these factors, governors agreed with the Headteacher that's behaviour in the incident represented a serious breach of trust and an irrevocable breakdown in the relationship between the school and [SAG].

In the panel's view, such a blatant refusal to follow instructions breaches the fundamental principles underpinning the school's behaviour code. A failure to follow instructions places other students, staff, and the wider community, at risk, and undermines safeguarding policy and procedures.

In addition, the incident had damaged the good reputation of the school and its relationship with the ski resort hotel and had impacted on how other schools using the hotel perceived the school following the poor behaviour demonstrated by [SAG].

The panel noted that while the Minutes of the original panel meeting did not specifically mention it, by entering a member of staff's room to retrieve an item of property without permission, she had committed an offence of burglary under section 91A of the Theft Act, 1968.

It was also considered that, on the balance of probabilities, may have gained unlawful access to another member of staff's room, the teacher who had originally confiscated s phone, in an attempt to retrieve her phone.

Given the above factors demonstrating a serious breach of trust between the school and [SAG] the panel believed that allowing her to return to school would send the wrong message to other students, staff, and the wider school community, condoning inappropriate behaviour and setting a poor precedent on how the school responded with sanctions for breaches of the school's behaviour [policy].

The panel also felt that[SAG]'s return to school would impact on other students' concerns around feeling safe and the vulnerability of their personal property. In particular the children who were present who were implicated by [SAG] as being involved, but were in fact innocent by-standers. In addition, the teachers involved in the incident had felt let down and vulnerable as a result of SAG’s behaviour.

As part of the re-consideration of their decision, the panel reviewed the school behaviour log for [SAG]. This had been included as part of the pack circulated to all parties and during the initial PEX hearing, but had not been discussed in depth at the PEX and no questions were raised regarding specific incidents in the log by either the appellant or the panel.

The panel noted [SAG] that had incurred 30 behaviour points since she joined the school on 20th February 2024 and while this was not exceptionally high, it was noted that the average number of behaviour points per student was around 10 over a 5 year period. This showed that [SAG]’s points level was nevertheless significant compared to the majority of pupils.

In response to a comment in Mr Mall's submissions, [SAG] is referred to as a model student. The panel disagreed with this view and referred to the behaviour log where the teachers reference, refusal to follow instructions, lack of respect towards staff, being argumentative, rude, and demonstrating poor behaviour.

The Panel highlighted three incidents in particular in the behaviour log relating to a verbal threat of violence.

On 21^st April 2024, an incident involving verbal abuse to a member of staff along with a threat of violence. On 2nd December 2024, an incident in which there was a further verbal assault against a member of staff with using the "F" word. On 13^th December 2024, an indirect verbal assault against a member of staff in the presence of other students, in which had stated after the teacher was leaving, but within audible distance, she's really p…….g me off."

It was noted that at no time had [SAG] offered an apology for her poor behaviour to staff during her time at Winchmore, although the panel has noted the written apology submitted regarding the ski trip. The panel believe that the above incidents taken together demonstrate [SAG]'s lack of respect for authority and a lack of courtesy towards others.

Regarding initiatives to support [SAG’s] emotional well-being and mental health issues, in reviewing the documentation, the panel felt that the school had pursued this matter with [SAG] and her mother over [SAG ']s time at Winchmore and there was evidence of support offered documented in the pack.