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

Hakeem Ali v The Head Teacher and the Governors of the Lord Grey School, High Court, 27 June 2003

8 July 2003
The issues

Schools – exclusion – human rights.

The facts

The Claimant was a pupil at a school where there was a fire on the 8th March 2001. He and two other boys were suspected of involvement and they were excluded whilst Police enquiries continued. The Claimant argued that he had not been involved and that the fire had been started by one of the other two boys. On the 29th March they were charged with arson and the exclusion continued. The Claimant was due to sit SATS. Work was sent home by his teachers. On the 18th June, the Crown Prosecution Service discontinued. A re-integration meeting was arranged for the 13th July but the Claimant and his family did not attend for reasons, which were disputed. The School told the Claimant’s parents that the Claimant would be permanently excluded and his name removed from the School role. That happened on the 7th September 2001. The Claimant brought an action for damages against his Head Teacher and the governing body of the school, alleging a breach of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) and Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination) and Rights under Protocol 1 Article 2 (Right to Education).

The decision

1. Article 6 had no Application. It applied only to Civil Rights and obligations and criminal charges. It had no obligation to what was conceded to be not a civil right and was not a criminal charge.

2. Under those circumstances Article 14 was not relevant either.

3. The duty under the Protocol lay on the State and not on the School. It created no right to be educated at a particular school or in a particular way – see Yanasik -v- Turkey and ST & P -v- London Borough of Brent (Court of Appeal). The expulsion might amount to a breach of the Protocol where the pupil had no access to other education. If that were the case, the Local Education Authority and not the School would be liable.

4. In these circumstances a temporary exclusion was reasonable. However an indefinite temporary exclusion was not. An exclusion must either be a permanent exclusion or an exclusion for a fixed period – either one or the other. An indefinite temporary exclusion was not known to the law. Moreover, none of the requirements of Section 65(i) or Section 65(iii) of the School’s Standards and Framework Act 1998 were complied with (Section 65(i) – should inform the parents of the period of the exclusion and the reasons for the exclusion, the fact that he may make representations and the means by which such representations may be made; and Section 65(iii) provides that the Head Teacher should inform the Local Education Authority and the governing body of the period of the exclusion or the decision that the exclusion should be permanent together with reasons).

5. The removal from the school role in the Autumn of 2001 was also unlawful.

6. These decisions were challengeable by Judicial Review. They did not give rise to a liability and damages for breach of rights under the ECHR.

focus on...

Legal updates

Insurance annual review 2019-2020

Welcome to our review of 2019 as we look ahead to what is on the horizon for the insurance sector in 2020.


Legal updates

Financial Services – ‘Duty of Care’ Bill: consumer protection or damp squib?

The Financial Services Duty of Care Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2019 and had its second reading on 9 January 2020.


Legal updates

Noise-induced hearing loss claims – documentation and the expert engineer

Guest writer, Finch Consulting Senior Consultant Teli Chinelis applies his expertise in preparing engineering reports in relation to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims to explain information that is required from the claimant and information that is required and is advisable to be retained by employers, in order to ensure that claims can be fairly represented.


Legal updates

SRA Standards and Regulations November 2019

On Monday 25 November the 2011 SRA Handbook is replaced by the 2019 SRA Standards and Regulations (often referred to as STARS).This is the 26th version of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors.


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.

mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up