Gaisiance, R (on the application of) v McLone & Ors

An examination board’s decision is not open to judicial review merely because a candidate alleges unfairness, breach of confidentiality or conspiracy. At the permission stage, the applicant must provide material capable of showing an arguable basis for public-law intervention. Where the board has assessed the work, reviewed the result and considered an internal appeal, and the evidence shows no procedural irregularity or improper disclosure affecting the result, the court has no basis to interfere.

Peter Gaisiance sought judicial review of the OCR examination board’s handling of his Law and Economics A-level results. He alleged that confidential information about candidates, scripts and subjects had been disclosed to third parties, affecting the impartiality of the examination and marking process. The board reviewed his results and later considered his appeal, rejecting it for lack of supporting material.

Turner J refused permission to apply for judicial review. Gaisiance applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against that refusal. The central issue was whether the material before the court disclosed any proper basis for interfering with the board’s assessment, review or appeal process.

Application dismissed; permission to appeal refused. Lord Justice Latham held that the material before the court disclosed no basis for judicial review intervention.

1. The applicant’s allegation of a longstanding conspiracy and disclosure of confidential information was unsupported by evidence. The House of Commons material relied upon did not refer to him and did not show that information had been leaked by or through the examining board. There was also no evidence that any alleged disclosure could have affected the examination grades.
2. The examination board had assessed the applicant’s Law and Economics A-level scripts, reviewed the marks after his request, and considered his subsequent appeal at a meeting. The appeal was considered with the relevant correspondence and was rejected because the Parliamentary records disclosed no supporting basis for the allegations.
3. The scripts supplied to the court showed clear and unanimous marking supporting the grade U results. The court could readily understand why that grading had been applied.
4. There was nothing in the material before the court to justify concluding that the grades were improperly assessed, improperly reviewed or procedurally mishandled. Accordingly, there was no basis upon which the court could interfere with the board’s decision.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Latham dismissed the application and refused permission to appeal.
2. Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Division): Turner J refused permission to apply for judicial review.