Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14, [2006] 2 AC 363
Citation:Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14, [2006] 2 AC 363
Rule of thumb:Is expelling or suspending a pupil from school a violation of their human right to education? No, it is needed to stop the pupil disrupting others so it is a legitimate aim that is being pursued thereby meaning that the interference is justified.
Background facts:
The basic facts were that a pupil was expelled in the lead-up to exams and not allowed to be part of the class.
Parties argued:
The teachers provided their reasons for this in that it was for the greater good and giving all pupils the right to prepare properly.
Judgment:
This Court held that was not deemed to be unreasonable or violate the right to education. If teachers can provide reasons for why they have acted in a certain way and these prima facie seem reasonable, any arguments regarding teaching standards not being met have to be substantiated with very clear reference to statutes, regulations or cases, or else they will not be successful.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘In comparison with most other Convention guarantees, (the right to education is) a weak one, and deliberately so. There is no right to education of a particular kind or quality, other than that prevailing in the state. There is no Convention guarantee of compliance with domestic law. There is no Convention guarantee of education at or by a particular institution. There is no Convention objection to the expulsion of a pupil from an educational institution on disciplinary grounds, unless (in the ordinary way) there is no alternative source of state education open to the pupil … The test, as always under the Convention, is a highly pragmatic one, to be applied to the specific facts of the case: have the authorities of the state acted so as to deny to a pupil effective access to such educational facilities as the state provides for such pupils?’ Lord Bingham. Lady Hale raised concerns at the situation, ‘Left to myself, I might have thought that three months out of school in the run-up to important public examinations was indeed to deny him effective access to the educational facilities which the state provides for year 12 pupils. He should not have been relegated to eight hours’ tuition a week for six weeks. But I appreciate that others think and have thought that it may be enough to be “effective”’, Baroness Hale
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.