Q, R (on the application of) v Wolverhampton City Council Independent Appeal Panel

An appeal panel which overturns permanent exclusion should not refuse reinstatement unless exceptional circumstances make reinstatement impractical, including an irretrievable breakdown in relevant relationships. No particular procedural sequence is legally required for considering reinstatement. The question is whether the procedure caused unfairness and deprived the affected party of a fair opportunity to respond. A decision letter should explain why reinstatement was refused and identify the circumstances showing irretrievable breakdown. The court may examine contemporaneous material to elucidate inadequate stated reasons where that material does not alter the basis of the decision.

The claimant sought judicial review of an independent appeal panel’s decision concerning the permanent exclusion of A from school. The panel accepted that A had participated in a serious assault but overturned the exclusion because the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he had kicked the caretaker. It nevertheless declined to direct reinstatement, referring to a breakdown in relationships.

The claimant alleged procedural unfairness because the reinstatement issue was raised during the hearing and because the panel considered the headteacher’s request for security assistance without giving an opportunity to respond. He also challenged the sufficiency of the panel’s reasons.

1. Application dismissed. The panel’s decision was not quashed.
2. The guidance required the panel, in an exceptional case, to consider whether an irretrievable breakdown in relations made reinstatement impractical. The relevant relationships included those between the pupil and teachers, the family and the school, and the pupil and other pupils involved in the exclusion or appeal process.
3. No principle of law prescribed when or in what procedural format the reinstatement issue had to be raised. The proper question was whether the procedure caused unfairness. The issue had been canvassed with A and his parents, and the headteacher’s evidence during submissions was sufficiently apparent to the claimant’s legal representative to permit cross-examination, further evidence or submissions. The failure to take those opportunities substantially weakened the complaint.
4. The panel also took account of the headteacher’s request for security assistance, which had not been put to the claimant for comment. Even assuming that it influenced the panel, the underlying fact was undeniable and cross-examination could not materially alter it. In any event, the remaining evidence independently provided ample material supporting a finding of irretrievable breakdown, including the violence, fear of reprisals, anonymous statements and concerns for the safety of pupils and staff.
5. The guidance on reasons did not create a statutory duty, but required the decision letter to state whether reinstatement was refused and why, with sufficient insight into the circumstances said to demonstrate irretrievable breakdown. The letter was inadequate because it did not explain those circumstances. However, the contemporaneous hearing material elucidated rather than changed the basis of the decision, and showed ample support for the conclusion. The reasons challenge therefore failed.