![CA-2025-002133 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1335](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_Sjvxvlx.png){kind=logo}
The Independent Review Panel (IRP)
The Independent Review Panel (IRP)
The IRP received written submissions on behalf of the appellant settled by a different person (Mr Mal) from the advocate who had appeared before the GDC. This is a very long document which contains a number of tendentious suggestions for which there is no evidence. It also contains some much better points. It is 19 pages long and I will not set it out here. The School also lodged some written submissions defending the lawfulness of its decision.
The IRP issued its decision by letter of 31 March 2025. It said:-
The panel quashes the decision of the governing board of Winchmore School to exclude [SAG]. The panel directs that the governing body reconsiders its decision.
- 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