Supreme Court refuses permission for appeal over permanent exclusion after school ski trip

A Supreme Court panel comprising Lord Sales, Lord Richards and Lady Simler refused to grant permission on the basis that the case did not raise an arguable point of law or a point of law of general public importance.

The background to the dispute was that the appellant, SAG, had brought a challenge to a decision by the Governors’ Disciplinary Committee of the Winchmore School.

The GDC had upheld on reconsideration its earlier decision to refuse to reinstate SAG following a decision by the headteacher to exclude her permanently for misconduct.

That earlier decision had been quashed by an Independent Review Panel.

Neil Cameron KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, gave leave to bring a judicial review claim, but dismissed it.

In R (on the application of SAG) v the Governing Body of Winchmore School, the Court of Appeal refused – by a majority – SAG’s challenge to the dismissal of her claim for judicial review.

Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Arnold dismissed the appeal.

However, Lord Justice Edis considered that it was not reasonably open to the GDC to conclude that the misconduct was “extremely serious”.

SAG applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal but this was refused last week (2 February).

See also: Court of Appeal rules on exclusions once again - The Court of Appeal delivered its third exclusion decision this year at the end of October. This marks unprecedented activity in exclusion case law - no other Court of Appeal exclusion cases have emerged since the law changed in 2011, writes Philip Wood.