R, R (on the application of) v Leeds Magistrates Court & Ors

For an offence under section 444 of the Education Act 1996, unavoidable cause is assessed primarily by reference to the child. The court must consider all the circumstances, including parental circumstances where they affect the child. A claimed risk of serious harm may constitute a defence, but the parent’s subjective belief is not conclusive. Where Article 8 is engaged, decision-makers must consider both the attendance policy and the individual circumstances of the case. A general assertion of proportionality is insufficient, although a separate formulaic statement is unnecessary where the reasoning shows that the individual case was considered. The appeal was dismissed because the justices were entitled to find that the evidence did not establish a significant risk of suicide or another unavoidable cause.

Mrs R was convicted by Leeds magistrates under section 444 of the Education Act 1996 after her daughter, K, failed to attend school for 117 days. The magistrates accepted that the witnesses had given clear evidence and that Mrs R’s evidence was truthful, but concluded that the absence was not caused by an unavoidable cause. They also rejected an Article 8 challenge by reference to the general policy of ensuring school attendance.

On a case stated, Mrs R argued that bullying, severe distress and a significant risk of suicide made attendance unavoidable, and that the magistrates had failed to conduct an individualised proportionality assessment. The central issues were the meaning of unavoidable cause and the proper approach to Article 8.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to conclude that K’s absence was not caused by an unavoidable cause within section 444(3) of the Education Act 1996.
2. Unavoidable cause must be assessed by reference to the child, consistently with Jenkins v Howels [1949] 2 KB 218. The justices should consider all the circumstances. Parental circumstances are not invariably irrelevant where they may affect the circumstances of the child.
3. The magistrates were entitled to interpret their finding that bullying had affected K as rejecting a significant risk of suicide if she returned to school. The mother’s subjective belief was not conclusive, and K’s previous attendance after an alleged suicide attempt was relevant. Once that factual issue was resolved against the defence, the statutory conclusion followed.
4. Article 8 was engaged. The magistrates were required to consider the individual case as well as the general policy of securing school attendance. Their reasoning, read in context, showed that they had focused on the particular circumstances. A further formulaic recital would not have altered the result.
5. The questions in the case stated were too broadly framed for general or academic answers. The court declined to give wider guidance beyond what was necessary to decide this case.

The magistrates convicted Mrs R on 10 September 2004 and granted an absolute discharge, ordering her to pay £25 costs. The matter came before the Administrative Court by way of case stated. The appeal was dismissed.