R v St Edwards College

An independent admission appeal panel must apply the applicable School Admissions Code, but an appeal remains focused on whether the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied and whether the child would have obtained a place if they had been properly applied. A social or medical priority criterion requiring professional documentary evidence permits an evaluative judgment. Qualification for consideration under the criterion does not itself create an entitlement to admission or make a distance tie-break decisive. The panel need not examine every other application unless a clear and specific issue makes that relevant. Decision letters should be read as the work of an expert panel. The court will not quash a decision merely because its reasons are expressed as conclusions where the basis of the decision is clear.

The claimant sought judicial review of an independent appeal panel’s refusal to overturn the rejection of his daughter’s application for a Year 7 place at the defendant college. The application relied on the college’s priority 2 criterion for children with medical or social reasons, supported by professional documentary evidence. The appeal panel concluded that the admission arrangements had been properly applied, that the published admission number had already been exceeded, and that the evidence did not satisfy priority 2.

The claimant argued that the panel had failed to apply the 2009 School Admissions Code, imposed an unlawful heightened test, failed to consider the admission authority’s treatment of other applications, acted irrationally, and gave inadequate reasons. Permission was granted and the judicial review claim was determined at the rolled-up hearing.

1. Outcome. Permission was granted, but the claim for judicial review was dismissed.
2. The independent appeal panel was bound to apply the 2009 School Admissions Appeal Code. The claimant could nevertheless succeed only by showing a material error in the treatment of his daughter’s application. The panel was not required, in the absence of a clear and specific issue, to investigate all other applications made under the same priority.
3. The priority 2 criterion was not ambiguous or unlawfully incomplete. The requirement for professional documentary evidence focused on independence and expertise, but did not make doctors and social workers exclusive sources of evidence. A head teacher’s evidence could be relevant, for example in a bullying case.
4. The criterion necessarily required an evaluative judgment. The evidence had to be assessed by reference to the reasons why the college was the most suitable school and the difficulties that attendance at another school would cause. Considering the severity of the child’s condition and the associated difficulties was not an impermissible heightened test. It was an application of the test implicit in the published criterion. Satisfying the threshold for consideration under priority 2 did not entitle a child to a place, and the fact that fewer than the maximum number of priority 2 places had been allocated did not alter that conclusion.
5. Under paragraph 6(2) of the Regulations, the panel could consider whether the admission arrangements complied with the Code or the Act, but it was not obliged to undertake an abstract review of them. The relevant question was whether the arrangements had been correctly and impartially applied and, if not, whether the child would have obtained a place if they had been properly applied or had not contravened a mandatory requirement.
6. The reasons were sufficient. An appeal panel’s decision should be read as the decision of an independent expert body dealing with sensitive matters. Although the panel’s reasoning was expressed more as conclusions than as detailed analysis, its essential basis was clear: the evidence did not satisfy priority 2.

The judgment records that His Honour Judge Pelling QC directed a rolled-up hearing of the permission application and, if permission were granted, the substantive claim. Permission was granted by Mr Justice Simon, who then dismissed the judicial review claim. No earlier judgment under appeal is stated.