A DECISION on the expulsion of a pupil from a school must be based on his or her behaviour in the school, and not any external considerations, according to a new High Court ruling.
The availability of alternative education for the pupil in question should not be a factor in making the decision, the court stated.
In the first case to consider the correct basis for expulsion from a school, Mr Justice Charleton overturned a decision of an appeals committee to order the return of a boy aged 13 to a Waterford secondary school.
He had been expelled by the school’s board of management for bad behaviour. The appeals committee gave as one of its reasons the fact there was “a distinct lack of other educational alternatives” for the boy in the city.
The school took the decision to expel the boy in June 2010. This followed a series of incidents which began shortly after he entered the school in September 2009, and included name-calling, striking other students, beating a boy up, throwing a bag at a teacher, head-butting another teacher and spitting at a third, cursing and kicking doors.
There were a number of counselling sessions and home visits, but they did not solve his behavioural problems.
His father attended the meeting of the school’s board of management at which the boy’s proposed expulsion was discussed. Though he made what the judge described as “sensible points”, the school still expelled the boy. The father then used the appeals mechanism that exists under section 29 of the Education Act 1998, requiring the setting up of an appeals committee to consider the matter.
This committee overruled the decision of the board of management and ruled that the boy be gradually reintegrated into the school, which should avail of all available resources in dealing with him. The boy, his parents and the school should draw up a contract of behaviour, it said.
Waterford Vocational Education Committee, the patron of the school, asked the High Court to judicially review the decision.
Giving his ruling on July 27th last, later published on the Courts Service website, Mr Justice Charleton noted the judicial review procedure did not involve an appeal on the facts of the case, but rather an examination of the process. The crucial issue was the jurisdiction of the appeals committee, and he said that as the High Court had not previously been asked to rule on this issue, he hoped his ruling would be of assistance to educational bodies in future.
The issue was the jurisdiction of the appeals committee and whether it exceeded its jurisdiction in coming to its decision. The same factors had to be taken into account by a board of management and an appeals committee in deciding whether to expel a pupil. The appeals committee could not consider additional material.
In considering whether to require a student to leave a school, it was appropriate to focus on the behaviour of the pupil and its effect on the school; the track record of the pupil prior to the precipitating incident, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. It was not appropriate to take into account whether there was another place for the pupil.
He stressed the appeals committee had arrived at its decision in a transparently fair manner. He quashed its decision and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing before a new appeals committee.