J, R (on the application of) v Special Educational Needs & Disability Tribunal & Anor

On a statutory appeal from a specialist special educational needs tribunal, the court may interfere only for an error of law, absence of evidence, or a conclusion no reasonable tribunal could reach. Where a school is relied upon to provide the provision specified in a statement, the tribunal must have evidence enabling it to assess whether the school can meet each material requirement in Part 3. The assessment is directed to the specified provision rather than every objective separately. Evidence of planned training, specialist support, therapy, and relevant school experience may suffice. The tribunal’s specialist evaluative judgment is entitled to considerable respect. A possible inquisitorial duty to obtain further evidence need not be determined where the evidence before the tribunal is sufficient.

This was a statutory appeal concerning the school placement named in the special educational needs statement of a four-year-old child with autistic spectrum disorder. The parents sought placement at Salusbury Primary School while maintaining that an intensive home-based applied behaviour analysis programme should continue. The local authority agreed to name Salusbury but disputed the need for continuing ABA provision.

The parents challenged the Tribunal’s decision on the basis that there was insufficient evidence that Salusbury could provide the provision required by Part 3 of the statement without an ABA tutor. The Tribunal had rejected the proposed ABA provision, but that decision was not under appeal. The central issue was whether the Tribunal was entitled in law to name Salusbury as the appropriate school.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court’s jurisdiction was confined to questions of law. It could not substitute its view of the evidence for that of the Tribunal. The relevant threshold was whether there was no evidence supporting the finding or whether no reasonable tribunal could have reached it, applying the high Wednesbury threshold.
2. The applicable principle was that, if a school was relied upon to meet a need identified in Part 2 and provision specified in Part 3 of a statement, the Tribunal had to define the need accurately and satisfy itself that the school could provide the specified provision. The duty under section 324(4)(a) of the Education Act 1996 required the local education authority to ensure placement at an appropriate school.
3. The proper approach was to examine each requirement in Part 3B and ask whether evidence entitled the Tribunal to conclude that Salusbury could provide it without the ABA programme. It was unnecessary to demonstrate separately that every objective in Part 3A would be satisfied, because those objectives were reflected in the specific provision in Part 3B.
4. The evidence was sufficient. It covered a full-time trained learning support assistant, training by BOAT and other specialists, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, sensory integration, behavioural support, classroom adaptation, and access to specialist advice. Evidence of the school’s experience with autistic pupils was also a relevant matter which the Tribunal was entitled to consider.
5. The court accepted that special educational needs tribunals generally have an inquisitorial duty to obtain necessary basic information. However, because the evidence here was sufficient, it was unnecessary to decide whether that duty required further inquiry in this case. An attempt to challenge the Tribunal’s reasons as a new ground could not convert an appeal based on irrationality into an appeal based on inadequate reasons.

The naming of Salusbury School was not perverse and the appeal was dismissed.

• Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal: on 28 June 2005, named Salusbury Primary School in Part 4 of the statement and rejected the proposed continuation of the ABA programme in Part 3.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the statutory appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s decision.