SAG, R (on the application of) v The Governing Body of Winchmore School

By a majority, the court dismissed a judicial review challenge to permanent exclusion. The statutory scheme entrusts exclusion decisions to the headteacher and governing body. Judicial review requires careful scrutiny where exclusion may affect a child’s life chances, but it does not permit substitution of the court’s view of the appropriate sanction.

The applicable exclusion policy tracked the statutory guidance and did not impose the stricter threshold suggested by a separate behaviour policy. An erroneous criminal characterisation was immaterial where it was highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different without it. Reconsideration after an independent review panel’s quashing must address the identified procedural defect, but need not involve legalistic or exhaustive reasoning.

SAG, aged 14, was permanently excluded after a school skiing trip. The allegations concerned possession of a SIM card in a permitted mobile phone, entering a teacher’s room to recover the confiscated phone, and initially lying about the incident.

The governing body refused reinstatement. An independent review panel quashed that decision because the governing body had discussed alternative sanctions with the headteacher in SAG’s absence, and directed reconsideration. The governing body reconsidered the matter and upheld the exclusion. The Administrative Court, on a claim for judicial review, granted permission but dismissed all three grounds in [2025] EWHC 2117 (Admin). The appeal concerned the policy applicable to permanent exclusion, the effect of the governing body’s erroneous reference to burglary, and the intensity of judicial review.

By a majority, Elisabeth Laing LJ and Arnold LJ dismissed the appeal. Edis LJ would have allowed it.

1. Statutory scheme and review. Permanent exclusion is entrusted to the headteacher and governing body. A challenge after the statutory review process remains a public-law challenge. Even where the consequences for a child justify relatively exacting scrutiny, the court must respect the decision-makers’ expertise and knowledge of the school and must not substitute its own view of the appropriate sanction.
2. Applicable policy. Laing LJ held that the Exclusion and Suspension Policy was the relevant governing-body statement. It tracked the two-limb statutory guidance for permanent exclusion. The Behaviour Policy could not lawfully impose a stricter threshold. Alternatively, the judge was entitled to treat the question whether the conduct warranted exclusion as an evaluative judgment open to the Panel. Arnold LJ agreed that the argument concerning a stricter threshold was either new or challenged the judge’s evaluation.
3. Burglary reference. The Panel had made an erroneous reference to burglary under the Theft Act 1968. Applying section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the majority held that the error did not justify relief. The court assessed the error’s impact on the decision and did not need to predict precisely what the Panel would have decided without it.
4. Reconsideration and alternative sanctions. The reasons and minutes had to be read fairly and as a whole, without impermissible supplementation, but the Panel was not required to provide legalistic or exhaustive reasons. The majority held that the reconsideration record, including the reference to earlier consideration of alternatives and the review of SAG’s behaviour log, defeated the challenge that alternatives had not been considered.

Edis LJ dissented. He considered that the Behaviour Policy required the decision-makers to address whether the one-off incident was extremely serious, not merely serious. He would have held that the failure to do so was fatal, and that the false burglary allegation, unsupported findings about vulnerability, and repetition of the flawed approach to alternative sanctions materially tainted the reconsideration.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed by a majority. Edis LJ dissented. [2025] EWCA Civ 1335.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: Mr Neil Cameron KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, granted permission to apply for judicial review but dismissed the claim. [2025] EWHC 2117 (Admin).
3. Independent Review Panel: The Panel quashed the governing body’s first non-reinstatement decision and directed reconsideration.