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

The First GDC Decision, meeting on 3 March and letter of 6 March

A minute was created to record the discussion which preceded the decision. It will be necessary to set out the events of this meeting at some length because they resulted in the quashing of the decision by the IRP. Underlying the complaint about the GDC’s second decision on reconsideration is the suggestion that they did not really put right what had gone wrong first time. The account given here is entirely taken from the minute.

This meeting was in two parts. During the first part there were three governors present, the Headteacher was present and the appellant attended with her mother and an advocate. The appellant, her mother and advocate then withdrew and the second part of the meeting took place in their absence, but the Headteacher remained. The IRP was critical of this.

During the first part of the meeting, the Chair introduced the subject of the meeting and explained the procedure which would be adopted. This was explained as follows:-

The Chair described the process which the meeting would follow:

* the School's representative would be asked to summarise its case for the decision to permanently exclude the pupil;

* members of the Panel would ask any questions they wished to raise; the parent or their representative would also have the opportunity to ask questions;

* the parent or their representative would then be requested to respond with any representations and evidence they considered was relevant;

* again, Panel members would put any questions they had for the parent and the School's representative could put any questions they had for the parent;

* the Chair would then summarise what they had heard to make sure they had a correct understanding;

* the Chair would then ask the parties to leave the room and the Panel would go on to consider their decision with the assistance of the Clerk.

* the School would be informed of the decision of the Panel on the following day and the School would telephone [the appellant’s mother]. The Chair would send a formal letter confirming the decision and the reasons for the decision.

The GDC departed from the penultimate bullet point in this list. The Panel considered its decision in the presence of the Headteacher, who was not merely the “School’s representative” but the original decision-maker and a person of considerable influence.

In the first part of the meeting, the Headteacher set out the case for the decision to exclude the appellant permanently. That case focussed, as it inevitably would, on the serious nature of the conduct and its damaging effect on pupils and staff at the school. There has been no criticism of the way this was done. It is worth recording, because of what happened later, that during the School’s case, the governors expressly stated that the appellant’s previous disciplinary record did not count against her. The record states:-

“Governors noted from her behaviour log details that to date she had accumulated 30 points which, while above the school average for 95% of students during their time at Winchmore, was not considered to be excessive or indicative of persistent challenging behaviour. [The Headteacher] commented that [she] had settled in well and had contributed well to the school community and there were no issues noted with her academic record.”

The record also states this:-

“[One of the Panel] enquired whether while in the teacher's room, there was any evidence of tampering with, damage or loss to personal confidential information or student medication and [the Headteacher] confirmed that there had been no such damage or loss.”

The Headteacher also confirmed in answer to a question from the advocate that there was no evidence of any other reason for the appellant entering the teacher’s room other than a desire to recover her phone.

SAG’s case was then presented with the assistance of the advocate. She questioned whether the entering of the room to recover the phone represented a serious breach of trust and submitted that “it could not be equated with bringing a knife in to school or assaulting a member of staff; which were examples of types of serious behaviour included in the 2024 DFE guidance on suspensions and permanent exclusions”. This is a reference to paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Guidance, set out at [6] above. She emphasised the emotional difficulties being experienced by the appellant, her lack of a significant disciplinary record and submitted that permanent exclusion was not proportionate. There was discussion about the appellant’s receptiveness to support. The advocate said that the appellant had apologised for what she had done wrong, and expressed remorse.

The parties then summarised their cases, without adding anything of substance to what had already been said, except that there appears to have been an exchange between the Headteacher and the advocate which is recorded thus:

“[the advocate] asked [the Headteacher] whether any teachers had commented that they would be reluctant to teach due to her behaviour and JOW responded that he was not aware of any but that if there were, he would direct them as appropriate.”

I shall set out the rest of the minute in full, including an immaterial error in the numbering of sub-paragraphs (there are two sub-paragraphs (c)):-

Clerk's note [the family and advocate] left the meeting at 12.17 pm.