QB-2022-002971 - [2025] EWHC 2445 (KB)

The factual evidence relating to the Claimant’s time at Buckswood School

Prior to hearing oral evidence from Irune Pedrayes, I drew the parties’ attention to the guidance contained within the Advocate’s Gateway Toolkit 1, invited submissions from counsel as to any particular steps which should be taken in relation to oral evidence from the Claimant as a potential vulnerable party pursuant to CPR 1.6 and Practice Direction 1A, and provided instructions in relation to the questioning of the Claimant in accordance with paragraph 168 of the Equal Treatment Bench Book (May 2025 update). In the event, there was limited and careful cross-examination of the Claimant by Mr Edwards.

I also heard oral evidence from Ms Ainhoa Pedrayes, the Claimant’s sister. Given that Ainhoa Pedrayes did not attend the school with her sister, there was a limited amount of relevant evidence she could provide. As far as she was aware, her sister did not consume any illicit drugs before going to Buckswood School. No evidence was adduced from either of the Claimant’s parents.

Factual witness statements, together with Civil Evidence Act notices, were served on behalf of the Claimant from a Ms Maria Callis and Ms Cristina Troya Fernandez, both of whom had been Spanish students attending the school in 2019.

On behalf of the Defendant, I heard evidence in person from Mr Kevin Samson, the principal of the school. The Defendant did not adduce evidence from any other members of staff.

Buckswood School is a co-educational, fee-paying boarding school which takes domestic and international students between the ages of 10 and 19. In 2019 there were 184 boarders accommodated in six boarding houses on the school grounds.

On 19 June 2019 the Claimant’s parents applied to the school, via an agent, for her to join in September 2019, with an anticipated length of stay of one term, with a view to extending her time at the school if all went well. On the application form, the “no” option was selected in response to the following questions: “does the Student have any medical issues”; “does the Student have any Special Education Needs?”; “does the Student have any Behaviour concerns?”; and “does the Student have any Safeguarding and Child Protection issues?”.

A reference from her previous school was obtained, dated 5 July 2019, indicating (by a cross in an option box) that Ms Pedrayes was “below average” in the following: academic achievement, respect for staff, disciplined work habits and reaction to setbacks. The reference form included spaces for details of any Special Education Needs, any “Behaviour concerns”, any “Safeguarding and Child Protection” issues and any “medical issues” to be set out, but these were all left blank.

An email of 10 July 2019 from the school’s international admissions co-ordinator, Ms Cristina Terrazas, to Mr Samson provided some further information obtained from the agent. It was explained that Ms Pedrayes had not passed her last school year in Spain, meaning that it was proposed by her school that she should repeat the year if she continued in school in Spain. The email stated:

“They have also told me today for first time ... that ‘her parents have told us that this has not been an easy year for Irune on an emotional level which has notably affected her academic performance. She has been going to a psychologist for the last 6 months and the parents ask me if you have a psycho-pedagogical team that could support Irune. It seems that it does not have any serious pathology and it is only rebellion and desire to attract attention but we have already requested a report with the diagnosis and recommendations.’

After their email I have called the agent to try to have more clarification. She said that Irune is a smart girl, but her brother had a car accident 6 years ago, and parents were expending a lot of time at the hospital and focus in her brother, and it looks like if this affected her. Also maybe she can be kind a little spoil girl; her mother allow her everything and the father is quite strict, and this duality is not helping her. She can be slightly manipulative. And naughty for the attention of the adults around (by instance, she is now in a summer camp in England, and she has threw the keys of the room to the roof ... ) So the agent thinks that it could be better for her to be with students of her age rather than younger ones.

I am waiting now for her psychologist report. I told the agent she will be able to use our counsellor service by free, but also that she will have to follow the rules and discipline of the school. So she can have a risk of being expelled.”

On 11 July 2019, the school informed the agents by email that “As we mentioned on the phone, we have a counsellor at the school, in our nursing area, which students can use free of charge whenever they need, or if parents prefer, we can schedule sessions with the counsellor on a regular basis. We also sometimes coordinate Skype sessions of the students with the psychologists they have in their home countries if this is necessary. We are waiting to receive the psychological report and the recommendations of your psychologist translated into English.”

An email (in translation) to the school from Irune Pedrayes’s father of 12 July 2019 included further details about the Claimant:

“Irune, although she does not have any clinical pathology, is being treated by a psychologist who weekly helps her to advance in her maturation period, to relate better, to be less irascible and to understand, accept and abide by the rules and hierarchy as a necessity for coexistence in order. If to these circumstances typical of Irune, insecurity, difficulty in establishing lasting relationships, accepting rules, etc.. you add the problems inherent to age (14 years old) because sometimes [her] behavior is not appropriate and also, too often, [she] is not treated in the right way because, instead of treating Irune as a "victim" you usually fall into the temptation of treating her as an "executioner" and these ways of proceeding not only do not mitigate risks but aggravate them considerably.

Our doubts, which my wife, the psychologist and myself want to ask you on Monday, are regarding whether you have trained personnel for this student profile. Yes, we will approach this problem as a challenge and if you bet with us to try to get the best out of Irune who is a girl with a wonderful background, very smart, noble and with great possibilities but, unfortunately, we have not been able to channel all her "aptitudes" due to a deficit of attitude that we believe can be corrected with education professionals with enough experience to get the best out of each student.”

An internal email of 15 July 2019 from Ms Terrazas to, amongst others, the “school counsellor”, “safeguarding officer”, “nurses”, and copied to Mr Samson, summarised the information received and explained that she had spoken to the family and the psychologist and was providing information in advance “as we will need to put a welfare plan in place for the staff and student to follow. I have already told the parents and psychologist that she will need to follow the rules and discipline of the school as the rest of our students”. The email continued as follows: “And this is that the psychologist has told me today: ‘She is a girl full of fears, and when she feels vulnerable, she tends to attract attention as a defence mechanism. She has problems to accept rules and discipline. And she works better under positive reinforcements rather than punishment’…” The email concluded that “she will probably use our counsellor service, and carry on with some sessions by skype with her Spanish psychologist.”

A report from a Spanish psychologist, Rafael Oteo Seijas, dated 16 July 2019 was provided to the school. This noted “great instability in [her] prognosis” with “improvements” but also “appearance of new problems”. The clinical judgment (in translation) was stated to be:

“Disordered behavioural alterations as a consequence of the development of insecure attachment in addition to a temperamental variable. Regarding a psychological level, we can explain Irune's behaviour as a result of her way of perceiving herself and social relationships:

- Desire for invulnerability.

- Distant distrust vs. Influence and social pressure.

- Unconscious scepticism about relationships.

- Fear of rejection vs. Need of contact.

- Fear of being emotionally hurt.”

The report then provided “intervention guidelines” which included:

“• Take into account the variables described in clinical judgment. Her behaviour will be exponentially better by reinforcement rather than by punishment. Punishment consolidates and fosters her way of perceiving others and, as a consequence, disruptive behaviours appear. The reinforcement mismatches her way of conceiving social relationships and covers her most basic need, so that she will respond much better to the instructions and requests of anyone perceived as reinforcing. Therefore, we must be encouraging, comforting and emotional.

…

• Keep calm and avoid punishments (understood as any unpleasant stimulus for her) when Irune is invaded by an anxious emotional state. Regulate her from the tranquillity.

• We must be clear when establishing the limits. The limits must be stable and agreed by all teachers, so that she understands the same consequences independently of the teacher. The limits must be previously established so that she can anticipate them….”

Irune Pedrayes’s evidence included an acceptance that she did have some “behavioural problems”, “had a hard time interacting well with people my age” before her time at Buckswood School, and that she saw a psychologist because of her “poor ability to fit in and because of my defiance”.

The Claimant joined the school on 9 September 2019. The evidence from the school is that there were induction sessions where school rules were explained and she was given a diary summarising the rules, which included a prohibition on consumption of alcohol, tobacco, vaping and illegal drugs. Irune Pedrayes said that she did not recall the induction process.

The school put in place a welfare plan which, according to Mr Samson’s statement, was emailed to key staff on 13 September 2019.

It is evident that Irune Pedrayes struggled, from her second week at the school, to comply with the school rules. Her behaviour appears to have been challenging and disruptive. The behaviour records list “uncooperative behaviour” twice on 17 September, resulting in a detention, and further uncooperative behaviour on 18 September, and regular entries thereafter. The Claimant accepts that her behaviour at school was not good and describes using her mobile phone in class and wanting to be “kicked out of class so I didn’t have to sit through class” and that she was punished for her behaviour.

On 19 September the Claimant’s father emailed the school referring to the fact that he had seen on the school’s app that she was in trouble for her behaviour and stating that he had sent her a WhatsApp message and explaining, again, about her difficulties in relating to others.

On 24 September the school Safeguarding officer, Anne Jeffrey, emailed the school counsellor, to ask her to “pick up with Irune” in relation to her behaviour, including “dressing and behaving inappropriately for her age. (Short skirts, short shorts, and the incident today of pulling up her skirt in front of a man to adjust her tights). She is worrying me. I understand that she had another tantrum tonight with her housemistress…”. Irune Pedrayes denies ever having been told that she could seek help from the school counsellor and denies having seen any posters at the school about the provision of counselling. Mr Samson states that she refused help from the school counsellor.

The school’s minutes of the Behaviour Committee Meeting dated 24 September 2019 sets out notes about the behaviour of four students at the school, one of whom was Irune Pedrayes. The notes in respect of the Claimant read as follows: “Irune Pedrayes Varela – is a very angry young lady who is getting into trouble for failing to follow the school rules. AJ [Anne Jeffrey, Safeguarding Officer] spoke to her today as she was angry and upset. She has a welfare plan. HOY [Head of Year] is struggling to manage her behaviour and is in contact with her father. She is also dressing inappropriately by rolling up her skirt and wearing very short shorts. DDUN [the school counsellor] to pick her up. Email received from sales staff from her counsellor in Spain. AJ to forward this to EW [Elaine Wilson, Learning Support] to see if she is able to support her. RM [Richard Maclean, Deputy Principal (Pastoral and Designated Safeguarding Lead)] to meet with HOY (JR) to discuss a plan for Irune”.

On 25 September 2019 Ms Gilly Johnson, Deputy Principal (Academic), circulated an email to the group email address to all teachers providing “useful information re Irune” which copied an email from Elaine Wilson summarising advice from the educational psychologist and saying that Irune had been put on the SEN register. The advice stated that Irune “has anxiety issues/Attachment problems/can exhibit resentful behaviour/impulsivity: Please read the information from EP that I have put on SIMS [Student Information Management System] under SEN [Special Educational Needs] full description which gives strategies to deal with her”.

A further email was sent to all teachers by Ms Johnson on 26 September 2019 asking for feedback “positive and negative about Irune Pedreyes-Varela, re behaviour, attitude to learning, school rules etc?”

The medical section of the school’s database note that Irune Pedrayes was suffering from cold symptoms, with a sore throat, on Friday 27 September 2019 and was given paracetamol and throat sweets in the morning and again in the afternoon. It was noted that she “hasn’t eaten anything today”.

Mr Samson explained that Irune Pedrayes was “gated” for the weekend as a punishment for previous unacceptable behaviour, meaning that she was not allowed to go into town on Saturday 28 September. I have seen a copy of a “weekend gating form” dated 28 September 2019 with the Claimant’s name at the top and which states “to be signed by a member of staff according to the schedule below”. There is then a box setting out times on Saturday from 1:30pm every hour until 9:30pm with initials of a member of staff in each box, except for 7.30pm.

An email timed at 00:31 on 30 September from Ms Jenny O’Shea, the Claimant’s housemistress, to the school nurse records that Irune came to see her on the Saturday morning complaining of pain when she urinated and she was offered paracetamol but did not take any. The email records that her symptoms had worsened by lunchtime and Ms O’Shea walked her to the local medical centre, but, on arrival, the waiting time to see a doctor was showing as 3 hours and the Claimant refused to wait. They therefore went to the pharmacy and bought some cream. The email records that the Claimant’s parents were contacted and told that she had refused to wait to be seen. It also states that “I have asked her over the remainder of the weekend how she is and each time she says fine and refuses medication. However, she did have 1 paracetamol at 19:00 this evening (Sunday). She seems well within herself but she will need to see the doctor if the symptoms persist”.

In her witness statement Irune Pedrayes says, in relation to the events of the weekend of 28-29 September 2019, that “like any other weekend, we were going to the city…” She says that “there” (in town) “they” (other students) “bought alcohol or drugs”. Her statement is not correct is suggestion that she herself went to town on 28 September because, as noted above, she was “gated” and so had to stay at school. Her statement also makes no reference to the fact that she was taken to the medical centre by Ms O’Shea on the Saturday. She also makes no reference to being checked on every hour on Saturday afternoon, as appears to be recorded in the gating form. In short, it seems that her recollection of that weekend, perhaps not surprisingly, is unreliable. She suggests that at some stage on Saturday she took “magic” in a vape given to her by boys “in the senior year”.

Her statement then explains that she took “magic” again on Sunday 29 September in a vape on the rugby field and that “my head understood that something was happening to me that I had never felt before. I was very scared and I was afraid to talk to anyone because I felt very strange things… As soon as I noticed something strange in my head, I ran to my room, scared and got into bed”. She makes no reference in her statement to having been checked on by Miss O’Shea that evening, nor to having been given a paracetamol.

She says that the following morning, Monday morning, she was still feeling unwell and “knew I had to ask for help because I thought the feeling would last my entire life”. She recalls going to see the school nurse and she says that they did a urine test and, after lying down for a while, she was taken to hospital. She says she saw a doctor, that they took another urine test, and that she was told that she was still under the influence of the drug and that she should drink a lot.

The school’s medical notes records that she attended the school nurse at 08.32 on 30 September 2019 and that she “claims she has taken some drugs yesterday in a vape at about 11am in the day time, feels she has a headache, saying she has black in her vision, feels that things are repeating themselves, urine test performed, ketones +++, not sure if she is eating”.

The school medical notes record that she was taken to hospital: “A&E attendance 10.30 Assessed by Dr in A&E, re: symptoms of distress, disorientation, visual disturbance and paranoid thoughts, thought caused by vaping a liquid over the weekend. Advised to drink plenty of sweet fluids over next 24 hrs, when symptoms should subside. … A&E Attendance Ketones in urine ++ due to not eating anything over the weekend/dehydration. Admitted to also drinking alcohol at the time of vaping. Irune was offered orange juice and toast on return to the health centre, but declined. Left to go to lessons with friends.”

The welfare form completed by the school nurse ticked the “flag” box marked “substance misuse” and recorded that Irune presented with “vague physical symptoms but paranoid and manic symptoms obvious”. It continues “admitted vaping on Sunday in boarding house. Experiencing deja vue and some blackness in her vision. Taken to A&E for assessment. Says she was vaping Friday, Saturday & Sunday & drinking alcohol. Dr advised to drink plenty & symptoms are due to vaping incidents…”

An email from the school nurse to the Claimant’s father at midday on 30 September states “Irune has been feeling unwell this morning, we have arranged for her to be assessed by the doctor at the hospital, [w]hen we have further information I will let you know.” A second email, later that afternoon stated “Irune has been assessed by the Dr, Irune has eaten very little over the weekend and the Dr has suggested that she needs to eat and drink more. She has returned to school and felt well enough to return to her lessons”.

The medical records obtained from the hospital, and which would not have been seen by the school contemporaneously, record that the Claimant “admitted to smoking & vape liquid over weekend & felt unwell since”. It states that she presented to the school nurse “feeling anxious” and with “visual disturbances”. The medical notes also say “smoked cannabis vape + drank over weekend. Feeling fearful, anxious,+ “Deja vus” and “effects of recreational drugs”. The admission form states “extreme anxiety, disorientation, visual disturbances – used vape on Sunday” and “+++ Ketones in urine”. The discharge form, addressed to the Claimant’s GP in the UK, has a diagnosis of “recreational drug use” and under “instructions to GP” states “Safeguarding Concerns: Child is cause for safeguarding concern”. Again, the school would not have seen this.

Mr Samson confirmed that a search of Irune Pedrayes’s room was undertaken following the incident, but “nothing untoward was found, other than one broken cigarette. She was offered counselling by declined. That same afternoon [i.e. Monday 30 September] she returned to her lessons”.

A further school welfare form dated Tuesday 1 October 2019, completed by Ms O’Shea, contains a report from another student, whose name has been redacted. It states “[redacted] came to tell me that she knew where Irune had got the “magic” from that she used in a vape over the weekend. She told me that [redacted] and [redacted] had been the ones who supplied her with it…. She said that they were buying the magic online and having it delivered to School. [redacted] said that [redacted] had offered the vape to [redacted] over the weekend but [redacted] had said no.”

The school’s medical chronology contains entries for 1 October 2019 which notes that Irune Pedrayes went to the school nurse at 08:30 “reporting feeling unwell, has not followed advice from Dr regarding drinking sweet fluids. Says she did not sleep last night and is still experiencing deja vue feelings”. An observation chart for 1 October 2019 records that she slept in the morning and was given toast at 12:00 and, at 12:30 was “left with counsellor to get changed” and that she attended school that afternoon. A later entry in the records that day says the Claimant “was feeling ok but went to sleep early around 22:00 which is unlike her”.

I have seen a copy of the WhatsApp messages between the Claimant’s father and the agent liaising with the school. A message from the agent dated 1 October 2019 read “Irune has been sick this weekend and was taken to the hospital yesterday. Apparently, it was nothing”. On the same day, the Claimant’s father responded to say that he had seen a report of bad behaviour relating to the Claimant when looking for any “news about the infection that occurred over the weekend”. The reference to “infection” appears to relate to the urinary tract infection issue which he had been informed about on Saturday. The agent responded to say “please don’t worry. The school is doing its job and is keeping an eye on Irune. They have a points system using this card where they add and subtract points based on her behaviour and work”.

The school emailed the Claimant’s father the next day, Wednesday 2 October 2019, with an update. The email records that she was seen at the hospital on Monday and that she has been advised to drink plenty of sugary fluids and to ensure that she is eating enough. It records that her eating is being monitored and that since attending hospital she “seemed energetic and well within the house in the mornings and evenings”. The email also states that she “used a vape over the weekend”, which is “a breach of our behaviour policy” and that “three breaches of the behaviour policy concerning smoking results in a fixed term exclusion from school”. The email refers to “many avenues available to support her”, including a “resident counsellor who she has been referred to but at present she does not wish to visit”.

It is accepted by the Defendant that the school informed the Claimant’s parents that the Claimant had been vaping, but did not inform them that she had admitted that the vape contained a drug called “magic”, nor that another child had reported that the Claimant had taken “magic”. It is also apparent that the school did not inform the Claimant’s parents that the attendance at the hospital was because the Claimant was suffering “paranoid and manic symptoms” (as recorded by the school nurse) in association with reported drug use. Rather, it is clear that the school let the Claimant’s father assume that the hospital attendance was connected with the urinary tract infection symptoms which he had been informed about on the Saturday.

Following the weekend of 27-29 September, there are regular reports in the school’s behaviour record of Irune Pedrayes’s poor behaviour, with a list of 11 detentions between 3 October and 10 November 2019.

Irune Pedrayes describes living “in a parallel reality a large part of the time” for the rest of her time at the school. It appears that Mr Pedrayes did not see the school counsellor and did not, in fact, have any videoconference sessions with her Spanish psychologist during her time at the school. Mr Samson’s evidence was that there was no record of her attending the school nurse after her hospital visit in relation to “panic attacks, nightmares, nervousness etc and I do not recall anyone suggesting the same to me”. Conversely, there are a number of attendances on the school nurse in October and November recorded for minor ailments, mainly colds.

In an internal email entitled “IP weekly welfare plan feedback” dated 13 October 2019 a member of staff (name redacted) stated:

“Irune continues to be ok within the boarding house and adheres to the majority of the rules. However, her mental stability continues to be a concern. She has struggled in the classroom continually and has had verbal altercations with several of her teachers this week I understand. She struggles to understand how to conduct herself or express her opinion without shouting and becoming argumentative. I have few problems with her from the boarding side. However on Friday she failed to arrive at 20:00 for prep and I had to send other students out to look for her. She did understand the problem with this when I spoke to her and did apologise but it is another indication that she is not showing signs of accepting the rules that govern her existence here at school”.

In her oral evidence Irune Pedrayes stated that she continued to take drugs whilst at the school, including taking THC with Ms Callis a few days after taking “magic” over the weekend of 27-29 September and her evidence was that a photograph of her taken on 24 October 2019 shows her smoking THC in the school grounds.

Mr Samson drew attention to an email from Irune Pedrayes’s father of 4 November 2019 which indicated that Irune was happy at the school and the help she was receiving.

On 11 November Mr Samson wrote to Irune Pedrayes’s parents to inform them of his decision to exclude her from school for 3 days. He added: “this decision had not been taken lightly, but Irune’s behaviour was far from acceptable and in breach of school rules”. The letter states the reasons as including “Irune has been found to have been smoking, constant disruption in class, missing lessons, out of bounds three times (being in and around a male residence), and damaging school property by kicking and breaking a window in Residence 2 (a male residence) on 8 November…”.

An entry in the school database of 19 November records that on return from her 3-day exclusion she was placed on a “Behaviour Contract” and that “by the end of the first morning back she had broken all the conditions….”. Mr Samson explains that she had been found smoking in the boarding house during lunchtime that day and the school records notes that the smoking had taken place in another student’s bedroom and that Irune Pedrayes had left a candle burning “to get rid of the smell”. He also notes that the school’s “my concern” record of 20 November gives further details of alleged teasing/bullying of another student and making a racist comment to her maths teacher, suggesting that she should “go back to her own country”.

Mr Samson’s evidence was that “we did everything we could to help this troubled girl but ultimately it was not the correct place for her as the disruption she created on a daily basis was such that we could not manage her behaviour. There were far greater psychological problems than were disclosed to and anticipated by the school on admission.” He explains that “instead of permanently excluding Irune, which would have gone on her record, I asked her parents to withdraw her from the school, with immediate effect…”. He wrote to her parents on 20 November and her parents removed her from the school on 23 November 2019.

In her statement Irune Pedrayes says that she was happy at the school and did not want to leave despite her continuing psychological issues. When she was told that she had to leave the school she says that she told a teacher untruthful things about a member of her family in a “desperate attempt not to be expelled”. Those allegations were of a serious safeguarding nature and, according to Mr Samson, the school referred her allegations to both the Spanish and British social services. A note in the school’s database of 20 February 2020 stated that, even though Irune Pedrayes had left the school, she had contacted the art teacher at the school in “the middle of the night” making further allegations of continuing problems and that the same teacher had received a message from a teacher at Irune Pedrayes’s new school saying that thew were aware of the issues.” Those allegations were not explored during the trial and it is not necessary to consider them further in this judgment.

Irune Pedrayes says that when she arrived back in Spain she told her parents about the “magic”, but they did not initially believe her as they thought the school would have informed them. It seems that her drug use continued. In the summer of 2020 she says that was admitted to a “specialised therapeutic-education centre” and received multiple diagnoses including “Cannabis use disorder”. The fact of the diagnoses are confirmed in the expert psychiatric evidence I have seen.