![CA-2025-002133 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1335](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
The exclusion decision
The exclusion decision
The note of the reintegration meeting records what was said, but does not describe the decision-making process or the decision itself. The incident was investigated. The appellant’s mother made a number of observations and asked questions, and the appellant herself gave an account of what happened on the skiing trip. The exclusion letter is sufficiently described above. The reasons given were brief (and none the worse for that). Although they refer to the Behaviour Policy, the misconduct is described as “serious” and not “extremely serious”.
- 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