Ali v Headteacher and Governors of Lord Grey School - Case Study Example

Case Analysis (a) The case is cited as Ali v Headteacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14, brought on appeal from the decision in the courts below. The Appellate Committee of judges comprised Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffman, Lord Scott of Foscote and Baroness Hale of Richmond. (b) Material facts of the case: As of March 2001, Respondent Ali was a 13 year old student at Lord Grey School. A fire broke out on March 8, 2001 and arson was suspected. The respondent was charged, since he was one of the last there pupils who was seen in the classroom before the fire. As a result, the school asked the boys to stay away from school till the investigation was completed and Ali was thus excluded from school for successive periods from 9th March to 6th June 2001. School work was sent to the defendant’s home and he was allowed to sit for his SAT tests between 8th and 14th May 2001. The school then referred the student to the LEA for the continuation of his education with no further work being assigned to the student by the school after 14th May. On 18th June 2001, the Prosecution informed Ali’s solicitors that the case was being discontinued for lack of evidence and this was formally executed the following day. The respondent approached the school with his brother and requested re-entry and official notice of discontinuance of the case was received by the school via a fax from the Court on 22nd June and the police on July 3, 2001. The head teacher sent letters to the respondent’s parents on 3rd July and 4th July to attend a meeting on 13th July in which all staff members concerned with the students’ reintegration would also be present. The three students were to compensate by painting the damaged room. However only one student turned up on 13th July and was reintegrated into the school; the respondent however did not turn up and neither did his family. They did not contact the school at the commencement of a new term in September and his name was struck off the school rolls in mid October. The parents contacted the students in early November for reinstatement of the student, which was unsuccessful because having failed to hear from them earlier, the school had allotted the respondent’s place to another student. From 21st January 2002, the student began to attend another school. The Pupil Referral Unit of the LEA at Manor House Road offered tuition for the pupil until the end of the current school term on 20th July. However, the parents refused the offer of tuition. In mid October, the student’s name was stuck off the rolls at Grey School, however following the advice of the head teacher, the parents sought admission for the respondent Ali at another secondary school. (c) Procedural history: The respondent commenced proceedings against the appellants on 27 August 2002 on the basis that his right to an education under the European Convention had been violated and he had been unlawfully excluded from school from 21 March to January 2002. At the lower Court, Stanley Burton held the exclusion to be unlawful under domestic law (Education Act of 2002); however no violation of Convention rights was deemed to have occurred, since such exclusion by the school was reasonable in the circumstances1. At the Court of Appeal, Sedley J concurred that no violation of article 2 had taken place between March 21 to 14th may, since alternate education had been provided by the school2 therefore it did not give rise to liabilities for the school, since the Article 23 only enforces the right to an education, not education at a specific school or in a specific language4. However, since domestic law had been violated, the appeal was allowed for the period from 7 June 2001 to 20 January 20025 and sent to the Court below for assessment of damages. (d) Grounds of appeal and issues: The school approached the House of Lords and the main issue that the Court had to decide in this case was whether the rights of the defendant Ali under Article 2 of the First protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights had been infringed by the school between June 1, 2001 to January 20, 2002. The said Article 2 provides that “no person shall be denied the right to education.” Another issue that was also valid in the case was the question of the violation of domestic law that had occurred on the matter of exclusion, since the school did not strictly follow the statutory regulations. Reasoning of the Court: (i) The exclusion of the student Ali from the school was not followed in strict accordance with the statute and regulations governing exclusions, as spelt out under Sections 64 to 67 of the School Standards and Framework Act of 1998, which allows for exclusions up to a period of 45 days beyond which exclusion is permanent. A head teacher is allowed to “exclude a pupil from the school for a fixed period or permanently.”6 However, this is envisioned by the statute as being for disciplinary reasons, and there is no provision under the statute for a precautionary exclusion, therefore applying a strict interpretation of the statute, the exclusion of the student Ali was unlawful. A decision taken to exclude a child can be taken only “in response to serious breaches of a school’s discipline policy”7 and unless the guilt of the defendant is proved, exclusion may not be justified.8 Moreover, the school is required to ensure that the student and parents fully understand the case against them9. However, as Lord Hoffman has pointed out, the code was not relevant in this case, since the pupil was not excluded after conviction of a disciplinary offence, but rather as a preventive measure in the best interests of the other pupils and the school10. (ii) Public law is the law is concerned with the relationship between individuals and the State, therefore public law will be invoked in cases where an individual is pitted against a Government organization or a public body. However private law deals with the relationship between individuals and does not involve the State or require its intervention. For example, public law would include criminal law and also involve those instances where constitutional provisions are challenged.11 Since the UK has no formal written Constitution, the supremacy of legislation passed by Parliament will be upheld12 and causes of action brought by individuals against such legislative provisions being enacted through a public body come under public law. In the case of R (B) v Head Teacher of Alperton Community School13 it was held that duties for breach of statutory duty would arise only in public law.14 Ali’s case was on violation of Convention rights, therefore Ali’s suit should have been brought against the State which could have been found liable – the school is not liable since such statutory duty is not imposed upon it as a private body. Moreover, the defendant Ali filed for damages, rather than a declaration that the school’s conduct was incompatible with a Convention right. This case involved an action that dealt with the relationship between individuals – the student, the parents and school authorities. Although the school violated domestic law,14a the applicability of the code to this particular case itself was in question, therefore breach of statutory duty by the school under the framework of public law cannot be effectively established. (c) Lord Hoffman disagreed with the decision of Sedley LJ in the court of Appeal on the basis of the corollary stated by the latter, wherein the violation of a Convention right is to be answered initially within the framework of the domestic law. However, Lord Hoffman points out that the Convention does not impose upon a State the duty to provide an education which is not provided under the domestic system15. Therefore while it may be contended that everyone has the right to be educated to a minimum standard16, the Convention does not impose further obligation to ensure education at a particular educational institution17. (d) Lord Hoffman also disagreed with the reasoning of Sedley LJ on the basis that the convention does not regulate the procedures of entry and exit from schools according to the limitations of the educational systems that are available within a particular country. As pointed out by Lord Hoffman, the procedures governing entry and exit, etc may be regulated under articles 6, 918 or 1419, however article 2 of the First Protocol only concerns itself with the basic right to a minimum education and asks the question , was the applicant denied the basis standards of education that were currently available under the existing domestic system? Was there no alternative source of state education available to the pupil?20 Since in Ali’s case, the access to the education was not denied but the focus of the dispute was the procedures governing his expulsion, etc it was not a relevant issue under article 2 of the first Protocol. (e) The majority opinion of the Court was that there was no violation of Ali’s Convention rights by the school. However, the only dissenting opinion was Lord Scott, who felt that the Convention rights of the defendant had been infringed, since the grounds for exclusion were not exceptional enough.21 Word Count: 1561 Bibliography Books: * Dicey, A.V. 1959. “The Law of the Constitution” (10th edn, ECS Wade) Legislation: * Section 52 of Education Act of 2002. * Circular 10/99 of the Department for education and Employment * European Convention of Human Rights Cases: * Ali v Headteacher and Governors of Grey School [2003] EWHC 1533 (QB); * Belgian Linguistic Case (No 2) (1968) 1 EHRR 252, pp 280-282 * Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1030 * Eren v Turkey, Application No 60856/00 (unreported), 7 February 2006, unreported * Lascelles v Incorporated Froebel Educational Institute, QBD 17.3.2001 * M v Home office (1994) 1 AC 377, (1992) QB 270 * R v IAP of Hillingdon BC and KM ex parte GB of Mellow Lane School (2001) 2 ELR 200, QBD * R (Holub) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 1 WLR 1359, 1367 * R v Independent Appeal Panel of Sheffield City Council, Ex p N [2000] ELR 700 * R (B) v Head Teacher of Alperton Community School [2001] ELR 359 * R (Begum) v Denbigh High School headteacher and Governors (2006) UKHL 15 * R (L) (A Minor) v Governors of J School [2003] UKHL 9; [2003] 2 AC 633 * Simpson v United Kingdom (1989) 64 DR 188 * Yasanik v Turkey (1993) 74 DR 14 Read More