T, R (on the application of) v Head Teacher Of Elliot School & Ors

In school exclusion proceedings, a failure to object promptly to a potentially disqualified committee member may justify refusing an extension of time for judicial review, particularly where a later appeal provides a full rehearing. There is no inflexible rule requiring a claimant to pursue judicial review before using an available appeal, but any parallel challenge should be indicated promptly. Anonymous statements may be considered by disciplinary and appeal panels, even without the maker being called. Their anonymity and the absence of cross-examination materially affect the weight they can safely receive. Panels must assess fairness case by case and exercise particular caution where the pupil cannot reasonably answer specific allegations without knowing their source.

T was permanently excluded from a maintained school after allegations of bullying, harassment and involvement in a fight. The governing body's Pupil Discipline Committee refused reinstatement, and an Appeal Panel reached the same conclusion after considering, among other material, anonymous pupil statements.

Judicial review proceedings were issued out of time. Collins J refused permission. The Court of Appeal granted permission on two issues: whether the presence of a teacher-governor who had previously dealt with matters involving T justified extending time to challenge the Discipline Committee's decision, and whether the Appeal Panel had acted unfairly by admitting and relying on anonymous statements.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the refusal to extend time for challenging the Pupil Discipline Committee's decision. The issue of delay was discretionary, and the judge had not exceeded the permissible bounds of that discretion.
2. There was no inflexible rule that a claimant must seek judicial review before pursuing an available appeal. In an appropriate case, time might be extended where the appellate process was sensibly tried first. The prudent course was to indicate promptly that a judicial review challenge was also contemplated. Here, no objection was made to the teacher-governor's participation before either the Discipline Committee or the Appeal Panel, and the evidence did not establish that her involvement made disqualification clear or that the committee's decision caused a substantive injustice.
3. In exclusion proceedings, panels may consider written statements without calling their makers, including anonymous statements. The absence of cross-examination and anonymity must affect the weight given to the evidence. Anonymity may prevent the pupil from adducing evidence concerning the maker's reliability, bias or motive. The decision-maker must therefore make a careful, fact-sensitive assessment of fairness.
4. The Appeal Panel's approach was not shown to be unfair. The anonymous statements were not the only evidence, and the panel had material from other witnesses and from T herself. The panel was entitled to regard the statements as weaker evidence and to reach its conclusion on the totality of the material.
5. Sedley LJ added that the school, the head teacher and the Local Education Authority had an objective and neutral role. Where anonymous evidence contains specific allegations which the pupil cannot reasonably meet without knowing the source, it should not be given weight. More general allegations may be considered after a properly reasoned balancing of fairness and unfairness.

• Administrative Court: Collins J refused permission for judicial review on 6 September 2001, including on grounds of delay and the use of anonymous statements.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the refusal to extend time and rejected the challenge to the Appeal Panel's treatment of anonymous evidence.