High Court ruling enhances SEND protections

The High Court has delivered a landmark judgment that quashes the permanent exclusion of a disabled child, significantly clarifying the legal responsibilities of schools when it comes to pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). On 5 August 2026, the Court found in favour of Henry, a primary school student with complex SEND, declaring that the decision to permanently exclude him was unlawful. This case marks a rare instance of a permanent exclusion reaching a final judicial review hearing and sets an essential precedent for future cases.

The circumstances leading to Henry's exclusion stemmed from an incident in July 2025, where he brought a replica butterfly knife to school and passed it to another student during a dispute. Following the event, the school's Principal made the decision to permanently exclude him, a ruling later upheld by the Governors' Discipline Panel (GDP) and, by a majority, by an Independent Review Panel (IRP).

In quashing the exclusion, the High Court determined that the GDP did not conduct the necessary careful and proportionate assessment mandated by law before justifying a permanent exclusion. Emphasising that such a measure should be a last resort, the Court noted that permanent exclusion is not a form of punishment but rather a means to safeguard students and the broader school community in serious situations where no lesser alternatives are viable.

The ruling highlighted critical factors that decision-makers must consider, including the potential impact of permanent exclusion on the child, the nature of any possible harm if the child remains in the school, and whether less severe measures, such as temporary suspensions or off-site provisions, could sufficiently manage any risks. Moreover, the Court stressed the need for schools to provide clear and contemporaneous justifications for exclusion decisions, especially when they involve disabled pupils, and offered guidance on the role of Independent Review Panels in these cases.

Additionally, the Court raised valid concerns about the use of CCTV evidence during the exclusion process, suggesting that schools might employ strategies such as blurring the faces of other involved students instead of withholding necessary footage altogether. The judgment concluded with a recommendation for the Department for Education to review its statutory guidance regarding suspensions and permanent exclusions to enhance clarity for both schools and governing bodies.

Angelo Monni, Solicitor at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, expressed the significance of the ruling, stating that it represents a crucial step for children with SEND, their families, and schools across England. He noted that the High Court underlined the principle that permanent exclusion is a last resort and cannot be justified without a thorough, evidence-based, and balanced assessment of the associated risks and the detrimental effects on a child. Monni highlighted that for children with disabilities and additional needs, exclusion can lead to lifelong repercussions, reiterating that the judgment strengthens the notion that schools must explore all reasonable alternatives before resorting to permanent removal from education.

This decision is expected to promote better decision-making in the education sector, ensuring that vulnerable children receive fair treatment and that exclusion actions remain transparent, proportionate, and well-reasoned. Henry was represented by the Public Law team at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, with Monni assisted by Nadia Roberts and Freya Wainstein. The successful claimant's counsel included Ollie Persey and Rosa Thomas from the Education Law Team at Garden Court Chambers.