BJ, R (on the application of) v Governing Body of a School

A decision to reinstate a pupil permanently excluded for serious violence requires exceptional justification and proper regard to applicable statutory guidance. An unreasoned decision which disregards that guidance is flawed. Where the court cannot conclude that proper compliance would have produced the same result, the appropriate remedy is to quash the decision and remit the matter to a differently constituted panel. Hardship arising from reconsideration is ordinarily a matter for the primary decision-maker on remission, rather than a reason to refuse relief.

A year 10 pupil was seriously assaulted by another pupil, who pleaded guilty to an offence under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The head teacher permanently excluded the assailant. A majority of the governing body's panel later decided to reinstate him, without giving reasons and while departing from statutory guidance.

The governing body conceded that the reinstatement decision should be quashed and sought reconsideration by a differently constituted panel. The interested party argued that relief should be declaratory only because reopening the matter would cause undue hardship. The central issues were the legality of the unreasoned decision, the availability of an alternative remedy, and the proper form of relief.

1. The claim succeeded. The governing body's reinstatement decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted panel.
2. Reinstatement following permanent exclusion for serious violence must be justified as an exceptional measure. The panel disregarded statutory guidance and gave no reasons for its decision, either at the time or subsequently. The decision was therefore flawed.
3. The court could not conclude that proper regard to the guidance would necessarily have produced the same outcome. The defect was consequently material and could not be treated as harmless.
4. No adequate alternative remedy existed through an injunction or undertakings. The agreed quashing and reconsideration order was appropriate.
5. Any question whether permanent exclusion would be unduly draconian, and the effect of reconsideration on the interested party, were matters for the fresh panel. They did not justify limiting relief to a declaration or refusing a fresh hearing.
6. There was no order as between the legally aided parties, subject to the necessary legal aid assessments. Permission to appeal was refused.