May 2009 - "Important Judgment For Children With SEN"
R (M) v East Sussex County Council; [2009] WLR(D) 141
QBD: Timothy Brennan QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge: 28 April 2009
The failure by a local education authority to amend a child’s statement of special educational needs during the year of the child’s transfer between phases of schooling, and to name and specify the type of school, was a breach of its obligations under s 324 of the 1996 Act and reg 19 of the 2001 Regulations.
Timothy Brennan QC, sitting as deputy judge in the Administrative Court of the Queen’s Bench Division, so held in allowing a claim for judicial review by a mother, M, in respect of the ongoing failure of the local education authority, East Sussex County Council, to amend the contents of a statement of the special educational needs of her child C.
The statement in question had named a maintained special school as appropriate for C’s needs. C’s parents disagreed with that choice. They moved C to an independent special school, which would also cater for his secondary education, and sought to have that school named in the statement and thus funded by the local authority. C’s statement was subject to the usual statutory process of annual review in March 2008 but the local authority refused to make the recommended changes. C’s parents decided not to challenge that refusal, in the expectation that, in the normal course and in accordance with reg 19 of the 2001 Regulations, the defendant would amend C’s statement in the run up to his secondary transfer, when disputes about the contents of the statement as then amended could be appealed to the Special Needs and Disability Tribunal under section 326 of the 1996 Act. The parents subsequently sought judicial review of the local authority’s ongoing refusal to amend the statement, confirmed in a letter dated 27 February 2009.
TIMOTHY BRENNAN QC said that at the heart of the appeal was the correct construction of reg 19 of the 2001 Regulations, which amplified the content of a statement of special educational needs made under the 1996 Act. Reg 19 applied (1)(a) where a statement was maintained for a child, and (b) where the child was within 12 calendar months of a transfer between phases of his schooling (2) from (a) primary to middle school, (b) primary to secondary school and (c) middle to secondary school and (d) secondary school to an institution specified in section 2(2A) of the 1996 Act. Reg 19(3) stated that an authority must ensure that the child’s statement was amended so that before 15 February in the calendar year of the child’s transfer, the statement named the school or other institution which the child would be attending following that transfer. Section 324 in Part IV of the 1996 Act also required the type of school to be specified and it had not been. The local authority had breached its statutory obligation and the claim for judicial review succeeded.
Appearances:
David Wolfe (instructed by Douglas Silas Solicitors) for the claimant;
Martin Haukeland (instructed by Director of Law and Performance Management, East Sussex County Council, Lewes) for the local authority.
Reported by: Georgina Orde, barrister
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
P.S. I always find it helpful to learn more about what people think about these updates so please take a minute to tell me what you think by clicking on ‘May 2009 Update – Your Thoughts’. Many thanks in advance if you get the chance to do this.
QBD: Timothy Brennan QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge: 28 April 2009
The failure by a local education authority to amend a child’s statement of special educational needs during the year of the child’s transfer between phases of schooling, and to name and specify the type of school, was a breach of its obligations under s 324 of the 1996 Act and reg 19 of the 2001 Regulations.
Timothy Brennan QC, sitting as deputy judge in the Administrative Court of the Queen’s Bench Division, so held in allowing a claim for judicial review by a mother, M, in respect of the ongoing failure of the local education authority, East Sussex County Council, to amend the contents of a statement of the special educational needs of her child C.
The statement in question had named a maintained special school as appropriate for C’s needs. C’s parents disagreed with that choice. They moved C to an independent special school, which would also cater for his secondary education, and sought to have that school named in the statement and thus funded by the local authority. C’s statement was subject to the usual statutory process of annual review in March 2008 but the local authority refused to make the recommended changes. C’s parents decided not to challenge that refusal, in the expectation that, in the normal course and in accordance with reg 19 of the 2001 Regulations, the defendant would amend C’s statement in the run up to his secondary transfer, when disputes about the contents of the statement as then amended could be appealed to the Special Needs and Disability Tribunal under section 326 of the 1996 Act. The parents subsequently sought judicial review of the local authority’s ongoing refusal to amend the statement, confirmed in a letter dated 27 February 2009.
TIMOTHY BRENNAN QC said that at the heart of the appeal was the correct construction of reg 19 of the 2001 Regulations, which amplified the content of a statement of special educational needs made under the 1996 Act. Reg 19 applied (1)(a) where a statement was maintained for a child, and (b) where the child was within 12 calendar months of a transfer between phases of his schooling (2) from (a) primary to middle school, (b) primary to secondary school and (c) middle to secondary school and (d) secondary school to an institution specified in section 2(2A) of the 1996 Act. Reg 19(3) stated that an authority must ensure that the child’s statement was amended so that before 15 February in the calendar year of the child’s transfer, the statement named the school or other institution which the child would be attending following that transfer. Section 324 in Part IV of the 1996 Act also required the type of school to be specified and it had not been. The local authority had breached its statutory obligation and the claim for judicial review succeeded.
Appearances:
David Wolfe (instructed by Douglas Silas Solicitors) for the claimant;
Martin Haukeland (instructed by Director of Law and Performance Management, East Sussex County Council, Lewes) for the local authority.
Reported by: Georgina Orde, barrister
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
P.S. I always find it helpful to learn more about what people think about these updates so please take a minute to tell me what you think by clicking on ‘May 2009 Update – Your Thoughts’. Many thanks in advance if you get the chance to do this.
