Abdul Hakim Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School

The House of Lords considered whether a pupil's rights under Article 2 of the First Protocol (right to education) had been infringed by a maintained school which had excluded him while criminal proceedings were pending and later removed him from the school roll. The court reiterated that Article 2 protects effective access to the domestic education system as provided by the State, but does not guarantee education at any particular institution or automatic compliance with domestic procedural rules. The availability of alternative state provision (here, tuition via the local authority's Pupil Referral Unit) meant that the pupil was not denied effective access to education between 7 June 2001 and 20 January 2002. Procedural breaches of the domestic exclusion code did not of themselves establish a Convention breach requiring damages under the Human Rights Act 1998.

The respondent, a pupil aged 13-14 in 2001, was one of three boys suspected of deliberately starting a fire at his school. The school kept him away while the police investigated, during which the school provided work for a time and referred him to the local education authority (LEA) for alternative provision. The prosecution was discontinued in June 2001; a reintegration meeting was arranged for 13 July but the pupil's family did not attend and the head teacher wrote removing him from the roll and advising the LEA to make alternative arrangements. The pupil did not obtain a place at another school until January 2002 and sued the head teacher and governors for damages under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for breach of Article 2 of the First Protocol.

• (i) Nature of the claim/application: claim for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 alleging denial of the right to education under Article 2 of the First Protocol due to unlawful exclusion from school.
• (ii) Issues framed: whether Article 2 was engaged and breached by the school's conduct between 7 June 2001 and 20 January 2002; the proper interpretation of Article 2 (access to the state education system versus right to remain at a particular school); and whether domestic unlawfulness of exclusion automatically gave rise to Convention liability.
• (iii) Court's reasoning: the House of Lords (majority) held that Article 2 guarantees access to the domestic educational system, not to a particular institution. On the facts the pupil had access to alternative state educational facilities (the Pupil Referral Unit) and the failure to take up those offers, together with the family's non-attendance at the reintegration meeting, meant the school did not deny him effective access. Although the school's handling of exclusion and removal from the roll breached domestic exclusion procedures, that unlawful domestic conduct did not translate into a breach of Article 2 requiring damages. The court also discussed the awkward fit of the statutory exclusion code (School Standards and Framework Act 1998, section 64 and related guidance) with 'precautionary' exclusions pending criminal proceedings.

Appeal allowed. The House of Lords held that Article 2 of the First Protocol protects effective access to the domestic system of education but does not guarantee education at a particular institution; because alternative state education was available and the pupil (and his family) declined or failed to pursue it and did not attend the reintegration meeting, the school did not deny him effective access between 7 June 2001 and 20 January 2002. Procedural breaches of the domestic exclusion code therefore did not establish Convention liability for damages.

First instance: High Court, Stanley Burnton J, [2003] EWHC 1533 (QB); Court of Appeal: [2004] EWCA Civ 382, [2004] QB 1231 (Sedley LJ dissenting from the trial judge on Article 2, holding denial between 7 June and 20 January and remitting on damages); House of Lords: [2006] UKHL 14 (appeal allowed, claim dismissed).