HEADS FACE TOUGHER RULES ON EXCLUSION

Pupils Accused of Knife or Drug Crimes Deserve a 'Fair Trial', Say
Lawyers

Headteachers will find it much more difficult to exclude children they
suspect of serious offences such as drug dealing, carrying a knife or
violent bullying if a major legal challenge is successful in the High
Court.

Lawyers say that children accused of the most serious wrongdoing are
not being given a 'fair trial' and that government regulations are
incompatible with the European Human Rights Act. If they win, a new
regime would see schools facing the same stringent legal standards as
those used in criminal courts.

Headteachers would be required to gather named witness statements,
cross-examine pupils, refuse to accept hearsay and be expected to
prove the credibility of witnesses. Only when they are sure 'beyond
reasonable doubt' that the child was guilty would they be able to
exclude them. The result would be a steep decline in the number of
exclusions, experts say.

'This would be a major worry for headteachers, whose job it is to
protect the interests of the other pupils and staff,' said John
Dunford, general-secretary of the Association of School and College
Leaders. 'Exclusion means the pupil has to go to another school. It is
not the same as in court, where you are guilty or not and sent to jail
or not.'

In one of the two cases being taken to court, a 14-year-old boy from a
middle-class family was excluded from his school after being accused
of dealing in cannabis. He later lost an appeal.

His solicitor, Angela Jackman of Fisher Meredith LLP, argued that the
boy was not given a fair trial. She questioned the credibility of two
witnesses, who changed their stories, pointed out that no drugs had
been found and that the head refused to disclose notes taken during
interviews.

Jackman is using a judicial review to challenge the fact that
headteachers are able to exclude children using the lowest standard of
proof, known as the balance of probabilities. 'If we are successful,
heads will be held to account in terms of decisions to exclude,' said
Jackman. 'They cannot take it as read that their word goes.'

Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Schools, who is named in the
challenge, is expected to defend the government's position this week.

In the other case, being taken by John Ford solicitors in north
London, a boy was accused of carrying a knife. Again, the lower
standard of proof was used. 'You have to think about the consequences
of exclusion,' said John Ford. 'As well as having a permanent mark on
their record, pupils can feel stigmatised, lose their self-esteem and
suffer alienation from the education system.'