Isle of Wight Council v Platt

Whether a child has attended school regularly under Education Act 1996, section 444 is a matter of fact and degree. An unauthorised holiday does not automatically establish the offence. The court must consider the absence in the wider context of the child’s attendance, including the attendance record and any relevant explanation. The authority cannot create automatic liability by particularising the offence solely by reference to the days of holiday absence. Secondary legislation governing the grant of leave does not amend the statutory offence or make every absence without statutory excuse criminal.

The Council appealed by way of case stated from the magistrates’ decision that there was no case to answer on a charge under section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996. The charge concerned the respondent’s daughter’s absence from school during 13 to 21 April 2015. The magistrates considered her attendance before and after the absence and concluded that a reasonable tribunal could find that she had attended regularly. The certified question was whether they erred in taking account of attendance outside the dates particularised in the summons.

1. The appeal was dismissed in substance. The magistrates did not err in considering attendance outside the particularised absence period.
2. Under section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996, the question whether a child has failed to attend school regularly is a matter of fact and degree for the magistrates. London Borough of Bromley v C [2006] ELR 358 was persuasive authority and was correctly decided.
3. An unauthorised holiday does not of itself necessarily constitute the offence. Its significance must be assessed in all the circumstances, including attendance over a wider period than the period of absence. The attendance record is a starting point, not conclusive evidence, and the court must consider all relevant evidence.
4. The Council’s proposed approach would permit every unauthorised holiday, potentially even a single day’s absence, to be criminalised by limiting the period of irregular attendance alleged in the information to the absence itself. That was not the effect of section 444(1).
5. Regulation 2 of the Education (Pupil Registration) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which concerned exceptional circumstances for granting leave, was secondary legislation and did not amend the nature or scope of the offence under section 444(1). It did not make every absence without statutory excuse an offence.
6. On the facts, the magistrates were entitled to consider the child’s attendance record from 1 September 2014 to 7 July 2015. Their conclusion that regular attendance had been established was reasonably open to them.
7. The wider arguments concerning vagueness, strict liability and the possible involvement of the Department for Education were left undecided because they were unnecessary to the disposal of the appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): on a case stated appeal from the Isle of Wight magistrates, held that the magistrates had not erred in law and answered the certified question in the negative.