R (L) (A Minor) v Governors of J School

The central legal question was the meaning of "reinstate" and "reinstated" in section 67 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The majority held that reinstatement requires that the pupil cease to be excluded and that the school resume the legal relationship, duties and obligations towards the pupil, but does not necessarily require exact restoration of all pre-exclusion conditions. The head teacher and governors may introduce special arrangements for a reinstated pupil so long as the reinstatement is real and not a sham. The House rejected the contention that the arrangements imposed on L were impermissible as a matter of law, finding them to be measures adopted in good faith to balance the interests of the pupil body, the victim and practical constraints (including the threat of industrial action). The minority view was that reinstatement requires substantial restoration of the status quo ante and that the regime in fact continued to exclude L from the life of the school.

Background and nature of the claim.

L (a 16 year old) was permanently excluded by his head teacher following a violent assault on another pupil. The governing body upheld the exclusion; an independent appeal panel allowed the appeal and directed immediate reinstatement. The head teacher then implemented a segregated regime under which L attended school but was confined to a small room, received very limited face-to-face teaching and had no social contact with other pupils. L sought judicial review of the head teacher's letter setting out that regime, contending that it did not give effect to the appeal panel's direction to reinstate.

Procedural history.

• High Court (Admin): Henriques J dismissed L's application ([2001] EWHC Admin 318).
• Court of Appeal: appeal dismissed ([2001] EWCA Civ 1199 / [2001] LGR 561).
• House of Lords: final hearing reported at [2003] UKHL 9.

Issues considered by the court.

• The statutory meaning of "reinstate"/"reinstatement" in sections 66 and 67 of the 1998 Act.
• Whether the regime imposed on L amounted to reinstatement required by the appeal panel's direction.
• The relevance of the teachers' threatened industrial action and whether that threat could excuse or invalidate the school's compliance with the panel's direction.
• Ancillary: whether Article 2 of Protocol 1 ECHR (right to education) was infringed by the regime.

Court's reasoning (concise).

The majority (Lords Hobhouse, Scott and Walker) concluded that "reinstatement" in the Act means restoration of the pupil-school relationship so that the pupil ceases to be excluded; it does not demand literal or full restoration of every pre-exclusion circumstance. The test is substantive: the reinstatement must not be a sham and the school must act in good faith in resuming duties towards the pupil. The head teacher must balance competing obligations to the whole school, including safety, discipline and the education of other pupils. On the facts, the majority held the head teacher's arrangements were a lawful, proportionate exercise of managerial discretion in difficult circumstances and did amount to reinstatement. The minority (Lords Bingham and Hoffmann) took a stricter view that reinstatement requires substantial re-integration into the social and educational life of the school and concluded that L's regime fell short; they would have declared the arrangements not to be reinstatement. The ECHR argument was rejected and the industrial action was relevant as a background practical constraint but did not render the school's action unlawful.

Appeal dismissed. The majority held that "reinstatement" under sections 66 and 67 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 requires restoration of the pupil-school relationship so that the pupil ceases to be excluded, but does not require exact restoration of all pre-exclusion conditions; the head teacher's segregated regime in this case was a bona fide managerial response to competing duties and constraints and therefore amounted to reinstatement. Two members of the House dissented, taking the view that reinstatement requires substantial restoration of the status quo ante and that the regime imposed on L did not achieve that.

Judicial review in the Administrative Court: Henriques J dismissed the claim ([2001] EWHC Admin 318). Court of Appeal: appeal dismissed ([2001] EWCA Civ 1199; [2001] LGR 561). House of Lords: final decision [2003] UKHL 9 (this report).