PZP, R (on the application of) v HS Academy Trust & Anor

An independent review panel must appoint an SEN expert when a parent requests one. If the expert is absent, the panel must inform the family of the right to seek an adjournment, which must be granted if requested. That entitlement may be waived only by a voluntary, informed and unequivocal decision. A panel’s decision to recommend reconsideration rather than quash must be rationally explained where its findings identify substantial public law errors. An error in identifying a pupil’s protected characteristic is not necessarily material where equality considerations were addressed across the decision-making process and would be highly unlikely to affect the outcome.

Two claims challenged the permanent exclusion of pupils from an academy following a serious assault involving racist language. PZP challenged the absence of an SEN expert at the Independent Review Panel and the panel’s decision to recommend reconsideration rather than quash the governing body’s decision. STW challenged the panel’s conclusion that he had no protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

The court considered the statutory exclusion scheme, the effect of the later reconsideration in PZP’s case, the public sector equality duty and the materiality of the IRP’s error in STW’s case.

1. PZP: SEN expert. Under reg. 25(1)(b) of the Regulations, the governing body had to appoint an SEN expert because PZP’s mother had requested one. As no expert attended, the family had a statutory right under paras. 13(2) and (3) of Sch. 1 to request an adjournment, and the IRP had to grant it if requested.
2. The evidence established that the clerk and the IRP told the family of the right to adjourn. The family chose to proceed for practical reasons. Waiver required a voluntary, informed and unequivocal election: Millar v Dickson [2002] 1 WLR 1615. The family understood the issues on which expert assistance was sought and was not pressured. The right was therefore waived.
3. PZP: irrationality. The IRP identified significant concerns about the GDP’s reasoning, including joint enterprise, racial motivation, proportionality, policy compliance and equality issues. Its unexplained decision to recommend reconsideration rather than quash was irrational. However, the GDP later reconsidered each material issue with adequate reasons. Applying s. 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, it was highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different.
4. STW: equality duty. The IRP was wrong to conclude that STW had no protected characteristics; race was a protected characteristic. The pleaded factual foundation, namely X’s involvement in the earlier May 2024 incident, had not been established. The court could not substitute its assessment for that of the responsible decision-makers.
5. In any event, equality considerations had been addressed overall, including community tensions, the effect of the incident on the school community and the need to foster good relations. Any error was immaterial under s. 31(2A). Both claims were dismissed.

The judgment was a first-instance judicial review decision. It records that permission was initially refused on the papers, the claims were later consolidated, and permission was subsequently granted on specified grounds.