A v Birmingham City Council

A specialist educational tribunal’s decision will be upheld where it has considered the evidence, addressed the substantial issues and given intelligible reasons. Fresh evidence may establish what issues were before the tribunal or whether evidence was considered, but it cannot supplement or improve the tribunal’s reasons.

Parental preference under section 9 of the Education Act 1986 is important but not decisive. Where suitable special educational provision can be made in a school, the question of education otherwise than in school under section 319 of the Education Act 1996 does not arise. Statements of special educational needs require sufficient clarity, but the appropriate degree of specificity and flexibility depends on the circumstances.

The parents of a five-year-old child with autism appealed under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 against a decision of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The tribunal had dismissed their appeal against the contents of a statement of special educational needs maintained by Birmingham City Council.

The parents sought provision based on a home-based applied behaviour analysis programme and an extended school day. The tribunal concluded that the child’s needs could be met through a placement at The Pines School, with intensive support, and that an extended school day was unnecessary. The issues before the court were whether the tribunal had misunderstood or disregarded evidence, unlawfully approached parental preference and education otherwise than in school, and failed to specify the required provision with sufficient precision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The tribunal was an experienced specialist body, and the court should be slow to interfere with a decision reached after careful consideration of the evidence.
2. The tribunal had not misunderstood the research or acted unreasonably, irrationally or unlawfully. The reference to research concerned the evidence in the round, not merely the evidence of one expert. The material supported the conclusion that an extended school day was unnecessary and that the proposed school placement with intensive support was sufficient.
3. Fresh evidence could not be used to advance or elaborate the tribunal’s reasons. However, consistently with Oxfordshire County Council v GB [2002] ELR 8, it could be considered for the limited purposes of identifying the issues before the tribunal or whether particular evidence had been considered.
4. The tribunal had given adequate reasons. Its decision showed that it had considered the evidence, dealt with the substantial points raised and made a clear, rational and reasonable finding. The approach was consistent with re Poyser v Mills Arbitration (1964) 2 QB 467 at 478.
5. The tribunal had properly had regard to the parents’ wishes under section 9 of the Education Act 1986. Those wishes were important but were not decisive. Since the tribunal found that appropriate provision could be made at The Pines, section 319 of the Education Act 1996 did not require arrangements for education otherwise than in school. The court therefore did not decide the apparent conflict between T v The SENT & Wiltshire County Council [2002] ELR 704 and Singh v Bracknell Forest Borough Council [1999] ELR 51.
6. A statement must be sufficiently clear and specific to disclose what provision has been decided, but it need not prescribe every contingency or detail. Applying S v City & Council of Swansea [2000] ELR 315 and E v London Borough of Newham [2003] ELR 286, the tribunal was entitled to allow an appropriate degree of flexibility. Read as a whole, its decision did not unlawfully delegate its duty or lack adequate particularity.
7. Permission to appeal was refused. The respondent was awarded costs, not to be enforced without leave; the legally aided appellants’ costs were subject to the stated certificate requirement.

• Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal — On 24 July 2003, dismissed the parents’ appeal concerning the contents of the child’s statement of special educational needs.
• High Court (Administrative Court) — The statutory appeal was dismissed under [2004] EWHC 156 (Admin). Permission to appeal was refused.