High Court quashes permanent exclusion of disabled child, finding decision letter to be “lacking in reasons and analysis”

In R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin), Alan Bates, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court, ruled in favour of "Henry", a primary school pupil with complex special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), who was permanently excluded at the age of 10.

The school’s decision to permanently exclude Henry arose after Henry had brought into school a replica butterfly knife in July 2025.

At mid-morning breaktime, Henry and two other children were playing with the replica knife whilst in the playground.

Very shortly afterwards, another child walked past, and one of the children who had been playing with the replica knife (Child X) ran up to another child (Child Y), whom he grabbed around the neck and pulled to the ground.

Child X, whilst having one of his arms around Child Y’s neck, stretched his other arm backwards with his hand opened. Henry opened the replica knife and placed it into Child X’s hand. Child X then used the replica knife to stab at Child Y.

School staff quickly intervened and removed the replica knife from Child X and confiscated it.

Henry was promptly suspended from attending the school for a fixed period of 5 school days, starting on the day after the incident.

Later that month, the school’s Principal wrote to Henry’s mother setting out a decision to permanently exclude him. The letter stated that Henry had committed a “one-off serious breach” of the school’s behaviour policy.

The letter stated that permanent exclusion decisions “must be reviewed by a panel” and that Henry’s mother would be entitled to make representations and provide evidence to the governors’ disciplinary panel (GDP) hearing.

The judge noted: “Decisions to permanently exclude a pupil from a state-funded school are taken initially by the school’s headteacher/principal but must then be considered by the school’s governing body or, in the case of an Academy school, its proprietor (i.e. the Academy Trust responsible for operating the school).

“The relevant legislation requires that the school’s governing body or Academy Trust then decide whether to ‘reinstate’ the pupil. Governing bodies and Academy Trusts typically delegate this function to a panel known as a governors’ disciplinary panel (GDP), which holds a meeting at which it considers relevant evidence and representations and then takes its decision as to reinstatement.”

The GDP hearing took place after the school summer holiday period, in September 2025. The outcome of the hearing was that the GDP decided not to reinstate Henry.

Henry’s mother then requested that the GDP’s decision not to reinstate Henry be reviewed by an Independent Review Panel (IRP). The IRP held a hearing in October 2025. The IRP comprised three members: a chairperson, a governor of another school, and a headteacher.

The IRP’s decision found that “though … a number of possible sanctions were explored, not all were considered”. The IRP also criticised the GDP for a “lack of recorded minutes which could have provided evidence of anxious scrutiny and robustness within the [GDP’s] discussion”.

The IRP nevertheless upheld the GDP’s decision.

A judicial review pre-action protocol letter on behalf of Henry was sent to the Defendant Academy Trust in December 2025.

The following grounds were submitted:

• The GDP failed to adequately assess the proportionality of permanent exclusion.
• The GDP’s reasons were inadequate.

Analysing ground one, the judge said: “This ground of challenge implicitly raises questions as to: (1) whether, and to what extent, a school’s headteacher/principal and GDP are each required to assess the proportionality of permanent exclusion in the circumstances of the case; and (2) what ‘proportionality’ means in this context, and the approach to be taken for assessing whether permanent exclusion is ‘proportionate’.”

The judge observed at paragraph 40 that a GDP should not refuse to reinstate an excluded pupil unless it has first satisfied itself that:

1. a lesser measure, such as a fixed term exclusion (i.e. a suspension), would not be sufficient to protect against serious harm; and
2. refusing to allow the pupil to return to attending the school would be proportionate in the sense that the detriment to the pupil from refusing to allow him or her to return, is outweighed by the countervailing interests of that pupil or other members of the school community.

The judge said: “In my judgment, the reasons given in the GDP’s decision letter fall short of showing that the two matters set out in paragraph 40 above – including, specifically, proportionality – were properly considered.

“The text within (i) the GDP’s decision letter, and (ii) the prior decision letter from the Principal, for setting out the reasons why permanent exclusion was appropriate do little more than recite the 'would seriously harm the education or welfare' threshold condition specified in the Guidance, before stating that permanent exclusion was proportionate. Such statements were essentially just asserted conclusions: they asserted that the pre-conditions for permanent exclusion were satisfied. The documents did not provide reasoning or analysis explaining why the Principal and/or the GDP had found that those pre-conditions were satisfied.” (Judge’s emphasis).

Ground 1 therefore succeeded.

Turning to Ground 2, the judge noted that it “ultimately [rolled] into Ground 1” and therefore succeeded for the same reasons.

Meanwhile, the judge expressed concern about the handling of CCTV evidence relied upon during the exclusion process and suggested that schools should consider techniques such as blurring the faces of other pupils where appropriate, rather than withholding relevant footage entirely.

Finally, looking at national guidance relating to exclusions issued by the Department for Education, the judge warned there are a “number of aspects” which could be said to be unclear and/or incomplete, which the Department for Education might therefore wish to consider developing when the guidance is next updated.

He said: “Those aspects include: (a) the need for a GDP to assess the proportionality of refusing to reinstate a pupil; (b) the responsibility of the GDP to take its own decision as to reinstatement, based on the circumstances as they appear at the time of the GDP hearing, rather than merely to review the headteacher’s exclusion decision for ensuring that it was, or remains, reasonable and fair; and (c) the full scope of the public law standards properly to be applied by an IRP when deciding whether a GDP’s decision should be quashed, applying judicial review principles.”

The defendant’s permanent exclusion decision was quashed.

Henry was represented by Duncan Lewis Solicitors' Public Law team, led by Angelo Monni. Counsel for the claimant were Ollie Persey and Rosa Thomas of Garden Court Chambers’ Education Law Team.

Angelo Monni said: "This is an important judgment for children with SEND, their families and schools across England. The High Court has made clear that permanent exclusion is a measure of last resort and cannot be justified without a careful, evidence-based and proportionate assessment of both the risks involved and the devastating impact exclusion can have on a child.

"For children with disabilities and additional needs, exclusion can have lifelong consequences. This judgment reinforces that schools must demonstrate they have genuinely considered all reasonable alternatives before removing a child permanently from education.

"We hope this decision will help improve decision-making across the education sector, ensuring that vulnerable children receive fair treatment and that exclusion decisions are transparent, proportionate and properly reasoned."

Lottie Winson