logo-education
0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

special educational needs and human rights

19 July 2007

On 13 July 2007 judgement was handed down in the High Court in relation to four more education claims against Local Authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998 (the Act). The Authorities involved were Essex, Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Suffolk County Councils. The claims were made variously under Articles 3, 8, 14 and Article 2 Protocol 1 of the Act. Of particular interest however were the claims brought under Article 2 Protocol 1.

Facts

The co-joined claimants were referred to as A, J, S, and B. A was severely autistic, suffered from epilepsy and had severe learning difficulties. J had pathological demand avoidance syndrome and a compulsive aggressive disorder. S had a need for one to one support in mechanical activities and intensive long term therapy. B had profound and complex special needs. All of the claimants had Statements of Special Educational Needs (SEN).

The claims

Each of the claimants alleged that their human rights under Article 2 Protocol 1 had been breached on the basis that the education they had been offered by the responsible Local Authority for the provision of their education was not suitable given their SEN. Each sought a declaration and damages on the basis that the Local Authority had acted incompatibly with their rights under Article 2, Protocol 1. The four defendants sought summary judgement. It therefore fell to Mr Justice Field to decide whether the claims had a real prospect of success.

Article 2 Protocol 1

Article 2 Protocol 1 provides as follows

"No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the rights of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions".

The claimants argued that this right to education was a right to an education of a minimum standard such that in the case of children with SEN, they would have a human right to be educated in accordance with those SEN, particularly as set out in their Statement. This would have enabled parents of children with SEN to allege a breach of their childs human rights in relation to any period of time when they considered they had been denied an effective and meaningful education.

However, the Court found that case law showed that this human right was limited to whether a claimant had been denied fair and non-discriminatory access to the minimum standard of education available under the domestic system. It did not confer a right to child with SEN to be educated at a particular school or to have a particular type, or level, of SEN support. The defendant Local Authorities were therefore granted summary judgement on the claims.

Comment

Dissatisfaction with the system of appeals to SENDIST is increasingly widespread. Counsel for the claimants in these cases complained of the systems "byzantine complexity", the time it took for appeals to be determined and the perceived over-readiness of Judges to refuse permission for judicial review on the grounds that the SENDIST processes must be allowed to operate.

It follows that alternative means of challenging aspects of provision for children with SEN are being explored. However, this judgement makes it clear that where a person complains that his SEN are not being met at a time when he is in a school placement provided by the state, their complaint will not found a successful claim for breach of their human right to an education.

Following, as it does, failed human rights based challenges in the recent cases of Ali (relating to school exclusions) and Begum (relating to school uniforms), this latest case should give education professionals further confidence that the Human Rights Act will only impact where it can fairly be said that a person has not received the bare minimum of education.

focus on...

Legal updates

Safeguarding checks on academy governors

There are a different set of regulations that apply to academies compared to maintained schools regarding safeguarding checks that need to be carried out on governors. This article will tell you more.

View

Legal updates

The four important changes to the 2019 Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance

The 2019 version of Keeping Children Safe in Education is still in draft form, but it is highly likely it will come into force as currently drafted.

View

Legal updates

be connected newsletter for education - July 2019

As we approach the final few days of the school term, this edition of BeConnected provides you with the latest in legal updates, news and insight from the sector.

View

Legal updates

Relationships and sex education in schools

After a period of consultation and discussion with many organisations dating back to 2017, the Department for Education has now published its statutory guidance on relationships education, relationships and sex education and health education.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mark Blois

Mark Blois

Partner and Head of Education

View profile

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up