TZA, R (on the application of) v A Secondary School

A governing body considering whether to reinstate a permanently excluded pupil makes the ultimate decision for itself. A procedural error by the headteacher, including a failure to discharge the public sector equality duty, does not automatically require reinstatement where the governing body decides the matter fairly and on the correct legal basis.

The equality duty is contextual. It requires conscientious consideration of relevant equality needs, but no contemporaneous written record. The statutory guidance’s two-fold exclusion test sets a minimum threshold and permits consideration of proportionality and extenuating circumstances.

On reconsideration, governors must explain why the substance of an independent review panel’s concerns does not alter their decision. They need not answer every individual criticism, and the duty to give reasons must not impose an unrealistic burden.

A 15-year-old pupil of black Caribbean heritage who had special educational needs was permanently excluded after two assaults. The governing body declined to reinstate him. An independent review panel recommended reconsideration, after which the governing body unanimously confirmed its decision.

The pupil’s mother sought judicial review. She alleged that the headteacher had failed to comply with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and that the governing body had given inadequate reasons when reconsidering its decision. Upper Tribunal Judge Church, sitting as a High Court judge, dismissed the claim in [2023] EWHC 1722 (Admin).

The appeal concerned whether any error by the headteacher required reinstatement, whether the equality duty had been discharged, and whether the governing body had adequately addressed the independent review panel’s concerns.

1. Appeal dismissed. The governing body’s role was not confined to reviewing the headteacher’s decision for legality or rationality. Under regulation 24 of the School Discipline (Pupil Exclusions) (England) Regulations 2012, it had to determine for itself whether the pupil should be reinstated. A procedural error by the headteacher did not compel reinstatement where the governing body could make its own decision fairly and on the correct legal basis. The governing body had itself considered the public sector equality duty, so any failure by the headteacher would not invalidate its decision: paras 69–75.

2. Section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010 did not require a contemporaneous written record. The governing body knew that no such record existed and was entitled to rely on the minutes recording the headteacher’s evidence that she had considered the Act’s requirements. The content of “due regard” depended on context. For an individual exclusion, it was sufficient to bring the pupil’s protected characteristics, the disproportionate exclusion risk and the likely impact upon him conscientiously into the assessment of misconduct and future harm: paras 76–80.

3. The statutory guidance’s two-fold test was neither exhaustive nor wholly hard-edged. It prescribed a minimum threshold rather than requiring exclusion whenever that threshold was met. Seriousness involved judgment and could accommodate proportionality, extenuating circumstances and relevant deficiencies in past support. A headteacher could rely primarily on a serious breach and alternatively on persistent breaches. Past conduct could also inform future risk and proportionality: paras 22–24, 95–100.

4. Regulation 26(2) required reasons for the reconsidered decision, but the governing body did not have to answer every separate criticism made by the independent review panel. Its reasons had to show why the substance of the panel’s material concerns had not changed the result. Irrelevant, marginal or misconceived criticisms required no individual response. The original and reconsideration reasons were read together: paras 83–94.

5. The governing body adequately addressed the only potentially material concern about whether more support could have been provided. Although an express response to the particular support measures identified by the review panel would have been preferable, the minutes showed that the governing body reconsidered the pupil’s extensive support and concluded that nothing further had been identified. The duty to give reasons did not impose an unrealistic burden on governors: paras 105–109.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2025] EWCA Civ 200, unanimously dismissed the claimant’s appeal and upheld the rejection of both the public sector equality duty and inadequate-reasons grounds.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: Upper Tribunal Judge Church, sitting as a High Court judge, dismissed the judicial review claim in [2023] EWHC 1722 (Admin).
3. Governing body: Following an independent review panel’s recommendation, reconsidered the permanent exclusion and unanimously confirmed its earlier decision not to reinstate the pupil.