Local education authority's duty to provide suitable education - child withdrawn from suitable school which it was reasonably practicable for him to attend because of alleged bullying - authority not obliged to make alternative provision for child's education

R (G) v Westminster City Council: CA (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Master of the Rolls; Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Dyson): 30 January 2004

A father withdrew his 15-year-old son, G, from his school on the ground that he had been exposed to alleged bullying.

The school was suitable for G's age, aptitude and ability.

The local education authority refused the father's requests to make alternative arrangements for G's education.

G sought permission to claim judicial review of that refusal on the ground that the authority was in breach of its obligation under section 19 of the Education Act 1996.

Following refusal of permission by a deputy High Court judge, Lord Justice Carnwath granted permission and directed that the claim be heard by the Court of Appeal.

Ian Wise (instructed by Ashok Patel & Co) for G; Sarah Jane Davies (instructed by the Director of Legal and Administrative Services, Westminster City Council) for the authority.

Held, dismissing the claim, that section 19 of the 1996 Act imposed a duty upon local education authorities to make arrangements for the suitable education of children who, by reason of 'illness, exclusion or otherwise' might not receive suitable education; that 'or otherwise' was intended to cover situations in which it was not reasonably possible for a child to take advantage of any existing suitable schooling; that section 19 did not therefore require an authority to make alternative provision for a child's education where it had provided the child with a place at a suitable school which it was reasonably practicable for the child to attend; that G was not prevented from attending his school by reason of illness and his father had acted unreasonably in refusing to permit him to continue to attend school; and that, in those circumstances, the fact that G had not received schooling was not attributable to any breach by the authority of section19.