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

The misconduct

SAG was 14 years old when she went on a school skiing trip to Italy in January 2025. She had been a pupil at the School since February 2024. According to her witness statement she had settled in well and was enjoying her time at school, having made friends. She valued the fact that she could progress as a footballer there, and also worked at her academic studies. The point at which she was excluded was the time when she had to consider what GCSEs to take and was an important phase in her schooling. She had been very close to her father who died suddenly on 13 September 2024 which caused her great distress which she describes in her statement. This is confirmed by her mother and is not in dispute. Her mother had previously been treated for cancer and was again diagnosed with cancer in 2024 which created and additional level of stress for both SAG and her mother.

SAG says this about how she came to be on the skiing trip, and the circumstances in which she was permitted to have a phone while she was away:-

I was not meant to go on the ski trip until 2026 but my mum told me spaces were available for the 2025 trip. We talked about it and decided I should go especially as my best friend, CR, was going too. My mum is usually really protective and never lets me sleep over at anyone's house so this was a big deal. It was my first time ever being away from home.

Even though I was excited, I was also really anxious. I started having bad dreams; nightmares about getting lost or stranded and also about losing my dad again. I tried to laugh them off in the morning but deep down I was scared. My mum saw I was struggling and spoke to the school to ask if I could take my phone on the trip. My mum arranged with the school that I could bring my phone. This was just so I could keep in contact with my mum, take pictures and use it as an MP3. That made me feel a lot better. I was told that I was not allowed to have the SIM card in the phone but that I would be able to use the hotel Wi-Fi instead. That confused me as, to me, having Wi- Fi or using my SIM felt the same so I left the SIM in my phone.

I left for the ski trip on Saturday 18 January 2025. During the journey, I messaged my mum when we arrived at the airport, when we checked in, when we landed and when we got to the hotel. I mostly used my phone in the mornings or evenings just to talk to her. During the day while skiing, I always left my phone in my room.”

There was a rule that mobile phones were not allowed either in the School or on trips. That rule was varied in SAG’s case to the extent that she described. She was aware that she was not allowed to have a SIM card in the phone, but decided not to remove it for the reason she gave. Mr Greatorex accepted that permanent exclusion would not be justifiable simply for this breach of the instruction she had been given. The principal significance of a SIM card in these circumstances is that the phone can be used when there is no access to wifi, as long as there is mobile phone reception. The evidence is silent on whether the SIM card would materially add to the functionality of the phone in the circumstances of this skiing trip.

While on the trip, a teacher became aware that SAG’s phone had a SIM card in it, and confiscated it. SAG’s witness statement continues:-

I was really upset, especially because my phone was the only way I could stay in touch with home. My friends and I started talking about ways to get it back. We had made friends with students from another school who were staying at the same hotel. Their school allowed them to have their phones. One of the students suggested they could pretend the phone was theirs and ask for it back. That plan did not work. I then told the teacher that the phone was mine and asked if I could have it back but the teacher refused to return it.

Just before the disco, someone told me that they had managed to get the key to the teachers' room where my phone was. The hotel had a key board in the reception where you hung up your key to your room if you were leaving the hotel. It all seemed like a joke at first, something funny and silly that no one thought would actually go far. Around 15 of us, students from both schools, agreed to check if we could find the phone on our way to the disco.

We all went to the teachers' corridor. Someone used the key and opened the door. I do not know how many students actually went in but some stayed outside to watch for teachers, and some of us, including me, went inside to look. After a few seconds, someone outside shouted "they're coming!" and everyone ran. I was the last to try and leave but the door shut before I could get out.

I do not know who shut the door. I panicked. I could hear the teachers outside the door and I did not know what to do. While hiding, I saw that the key had been left behind by the student who took it so I picked it up and hid in the bathroom.

The teacher started knocking on the door and telling me to open the door. I did not open the door at first because I was scared. When they said it again and again, I eventually opened the door. Most of the teachers were outside the room. They were really angry. Everyone else had run except CR [a friend of SAG]. The teachers started questioning me. I only gave one-word answers because I was scared and I did not want to get anyone else in trouble.

Mr Higgs, the Assistant Headteacher, pulled me aside and asked me where the key was. At first, I lied and said I did not know hoping someone else would come forward and tell the truth. When no one did, I eventually told Mr Higgs that I had the key and gave it to him.”

It will be apparent that this incident involved several strands of misconduct. First, she ought not to have had a SIM card in her phone. The exclusion letter referred to this as part of the reasons for the exclusion, but the first GDC decision referred only to “the incident on the skiing trip on 23'ª January 2025, involving entering a teacher's room without permission in an attempt to retrieve her confiscated phone”. Secondly, SAG participated in an attempt to recover it which involved entering a teacher’s private hotel room to take back something which she knew had been lawfully confiscated by the school. Thirdly, when she was caught she told lies to deflect blame. She did not apologise until after the exclusion decision had been made.