H, R (on the application of) v Cornwall County Council

An admissions appeal panel deciding whether admission would prejudice efficient education or the efficient use of resources must consider the evidence for itself. An earlier exclusion appeal does not bind it where the issue of reinstatement was not argued or decided, particularly where the two panels apply different statutory criteria and perform different functions. The panel must have regard to the Schools Admissions Code of Practice, but it need not refer to the Code expressly in its decision letter if the evidence shows that it considered the relevant guidance. A provisional view formed at the beginning of deliberations does not establish a closed mind. An inadvertent factual error will not justify quashing a decision where the error could not have affected the outcome.

The claimant challenged the decision of Cornwall County Council’s admissions appeal panel refusing her son’s readmission to his former community school. He had been permanently excluded, but an exclusion appeal panel decided that permanent exclusion should not have occurred. It did not direct reinstatement because the claimant had said that she did not want it and because reinstatement was not argued as a live issue.

The claimant later changed her position and sought admission under the parental-preference arrangements. The admissions authority refused admission on the ground that it would prejudice efficient education or the efficient use of resources. The central issues were whether the admissions panel was bound by the earlier exclusion decision, whether it had properly considered the relevant Code provisions, and whether inadvertent errors concerning special educational needs figures and an alternative school rendered its decision unlawful.

1. The claim was dismissed. The admissions panel was required to determine for itself whether admission would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources under section 86(3)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
2. The exclusion panel had not decided the question of reinstatement. The issue had not been argued because the claimant had opposed reinstatement, and the local education authority had not addressed it. The earlier decision therefore did not preclude the admissions panel from considering the circumstances of the exclusion, M’s behaviour, its effect on staff and pupils, the school’s composition, and the demands that admission would place on it.
3. The two panels performed different statutory functions and applied different criteria. The exclusion panel had to balance the interests of the excluded pupil with those of other pupils and workers. The admissions panel had to apply the parental-preference and prejudice criteria. The principle against relitigating an issue therefore did not apply, and White v Aldridge QC and London Borough of Ealing [1999] ELR 150 had no application.
4. The admissions panel had to have regard to paragraphs 7.5 to 7.7 of the Schools Admissions Code of Practice. The Code was not mandatory, and the absence of an express reference to it in the decision letter was not decisive. The evidence showed that the Code had been drawn to the panel’s attention repeatedly and had been considered. Early provisional views during deliberations did not demonstrate that the panel had closed its mind.
5. The panel had not been materially misled by the incorrect special educational needs figures. The material point was that the school’s figures exceeded the national average, and the accurate figures could not have affected the decision. The omission of the alternative school’s Ofsted finding of serious weaknesses was likewise immaterial, since the relevant Code criterion concerned the school to which admission was sought and the alternative school was satisfactory in the years relevant to M.
6. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, not to be assessed or enforced without leave of the court. Detailed assessment was ordered for legal aid purposes.

First-instance judicial review. The judgment records no prior appellate decision.