Permanent exclusions and decision letters

The judgment in R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin) spans numerous issues: it questions schools’ general preference for redacted still CCTV images over the use of unredacted CCTV video footage, suggesting that there are circumstances where this preference may call for the quashing of a decision to permanently exclude; it reminds Governors that their function is to come to their own decision and use the headteacher as witness/adviser, rather than to deferentially review the headteacher’s decision; it comments on how giving reasons is fundamental to giving participants confidence in the system, particularly when there are concerns regarding discrimination; and identified key areas of statutory guidance that may require updating.

What is likely to be the biggest change flowing from the judgment is the practical implications of its approach to a decision letter that represents common practice amongst schools: a decision letter that simply states the threshold for Permanent Exclusion has been met, is a decision letter that should normally be quashed.  

Background and facts

The matter before the court concerned Henry, a pseudonym.

Henry gave a replica knife to his friend, who simulated stabbing a restrained pupil in the neck. No physical injury was sustained.

The school permanently excluded Henry on the basis that (a) this constituted a serious breach of the school’s behaviour policy, and that (b) allowing Henry to return to school would seriously harm the education or welfare of either Henry himself or others at the school. This was communicated to the family by decision letter without accompanying minutes.

Henry’s relevant person challenged the school’s decision by applying for an Independent Review Panel to hear the matter. A majority of panel members upheld the school’s decision; they viewed it as being: ‘proportionate, rational, reasonable and fair … procedurally correct…[and] necessary’ Para 14 R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin)

Henry’s litigation friend brought a judicial review claim on two grounds:

1. The Governors failed to adequately assess the proportionality of permanent exclusion Para 32 - 53 R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin)
2. The Governors failed to give adequate reasons Para 54 - 56 R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin).

The grounds rolled into one another, and both grounds succeeded: the court quashed the school’s decision to permanently exclude Henry.

Decision Letters (and giving reasons)

Many schools will need to reconsider how they draft permanent exclusion decision letters. Though schools are not expected to write in a technical and lawyerly manner, they are expected to apply and rationalise the full legal test Para 48 R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin).

At present, schools regularly issue pro forma decision letters that state the test for permanent exclusion has been met without explaining how it is met. This will often read along the lines of: the school has decided to permanently exclude your child following a serious breach of the behaviour policy because allowing your child to return to school will seriously harm the welfare of others. Such letters merely assert that the preconditions for permanent exclusions are satisfied Para 47 R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin), but this practice likely persists because schools often expect to rely upon Governor Disciplinary Panel minutes or witness evidence to elucidate their reasons if challenged.

Going forward, these schools should expect their pro forma decisions to be at significant risk of being quashed because the principal source of evidence for the school’s reasons should be the documents shared with the family at the time of the decision Para 45 R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin). This means schools should approach the decision letter as being akin to a judgment rather than a notification of outcome: schools should not expect to insert retro-reasons upon challenge by referencing contemporaneously withheld minutes or witness evidence going beyond the decision letter Para 62 R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin).

Each matter turns on its own facts, but the decision letter should likely cover the below, which expands on Para 48 R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin):

1. A statement that there was either a serious breach and/or persistent breaches of the behaviour policy
2. A description and assessment of the breach(es), along with: reference to the relevant aspect of the behaviour policy, what evidence led the school to take a view that the breach(es) were likely to have occurred, and why it is likely that the breach(es) would recur should the pupil remain in the school
3. A statement that allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education and/or welfare of the pupil and/or others
4. An explanation and assessment of what harm is likely to occur should the pupil remain in school, what evidence led the school to take this view, and why it is likely to occur
5. A statement on the degree of harm likely to be caused to Henry by the permanent exclusion
6. An explanation and assessment of what harm is likely, why the school say harm is likely, how severe that harm is likely to be, what evidence the school has relied upon, what the relevant circumstances are and how these relate to potential harms.
7. A statement as to what alternatives to Permanent Exclusion will allow the pupil to continue attending school
8. An explanation and assessment of whether each alternative mitigates the risk posed by the pupil returning, how likely each alternative is to mitigate the risk, to what extent each alternative is likely to mitigate the risk, and whether each alternative sufficiently mitigates the risk to allow return and if not, then why not.

Schools will need to adopt a near-exhaustive approach when drafting decisions. For example, the court criticised the school for not evidencing consideration of whether the replica knife was intrinsically dangerous, whether Henry contemporaneously understood his actions may have contributed to injury, whether Henry intended any harm, and the connection to any SEND. These considerations were essential to an assessment of whether Henry’s return would seriously harm the education or welfare of other pupils: If, for example, Henry brought an intrinsically dangerous item into school, and then handed it to Child X with the intention that it be used to cause Child Y significant harm, then those facts might well provide strong reason for thinking that, if Henry returned to attending the school, then he would engage in further behaviour harming other pupils. On the other hand, if the replica knife was not intrinsically dangerous, and Henry had viewed it essentially as a toy and had handed it to Child X without any intention to cause significant harm to Child Y, then the risk profile associated with allowing Henry to return to the school might have been significantly lower Para 50 R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin). Absence of these considerations can be fatal.

Conclusion

TR (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin) is a helpful and instructive decision that clarifies how schools should discharge their duties when deciding to permanently exclude a pupil.

Thomas McElholm is Team Senior Lawyer – Education at Staffordshire County Council.