M (A Minor) v Independent Appeal Panel Of London Borough Of Wandsworth & Anor

An independent appeal panel considering permanent exclusion must decide whether exclusion is a reasonable response to the pupil’s conduct. It must consider the material facts and relevant guidance and policies, but must not apply a school policy mechanically. A fair, independent merits hearing will ordinarily cure procedural unfairness at an earlier disciplinary stage unless that unfairness has tainted the appeal or is exceptionally gross. The panel must make the critical findings of fact on which its decision rests, and may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence. Possession of a knife in a school may properly be regarded as sufficiently serious to justify permanent exclusion.

The claimant, a child with special educational needs, challenged the governing body’s decision permanently to exclude him from a special school after he was found with a knife on the premises. The governing body upheld the head teacher’s decision, and the Independent Appeal Panel rejected the claimant’s appeal after considering the evidence, the school’s behaviour policy and the Secretary of State’s guidance.

The judicial review challenged the panel’s legal approach, factual findings, and reliance on evidence explaining the decision-making process. The central issues were whether the panel had treated breach of the policy as automatically requiring exclusion, whether it had made the necessary factual findings, and whether the earlier disciplinary process affected the sustainability of the appeal decision.

1. Earlier procedural unfairness. The court followed the approach in R (DR) v Head Teacher of St George’s Catholic School [2003] LGR 371. A fair, independent appeal involving a full merits hearing will ordinarily cure unfairness at the governing-body stage, unless the earlier defect has tainted the appeal or is so flagrant, and its consequences so severe, that even a complete rehearing cannot produce a just result. The claimant did not contend that the earlier defects had contaminated the appeal.
2. Correct legal approach. The panel did not decide the case solely by applying the school’s policy. It considered the claimant’s account, the circumstances of the incident and whether permanent exclusion was a reasonable response. The policy was treated as a relevant consideration, not as an automatic rule requiring exclusion.
3. Findings of fact. The panel made the critical findings that the claimant had not initially intended to hand in the knife and had not done so when first asked. It was entitled to infer that intention from his failure to surrender the knife immediately. There was sufficient evidence for that conclusion.
4. Proportionality and seriousness. The panel was entitled to regard possession of a knife in the circumstances as extremely serious and to conclude that permanent exclusion was justified. That conclusion was supported by the Secretary of State’s guidance, which identified carrying an offensive weapon as conduct capable of justifying permanent exclusion, including for a first or one-off offence.
5. Evidence and decision letter. Evidence explaining what occurred at the material time was admissible, although a simple ex post facto rationalisation would not be. The clerk could draft the decision letter where the panel chair approved its contents. The application for judicial review was dismissed. Permission to appeal was refused, and costs were awarded to the defendants subject to the usual Legal Services Commission proviso.