Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Judging Special Educational Needs: The Contribution of the Courts to the Developing Law of Special Educational Needs in England and Wales

  • Chapter
Special Education

Part of the book series: Yearbook of the European Association for Education Law and Policy ((YELP,volume 5))

  • 159 Accesses

Abstract

The law of Special Educational Needs (SEN) in England and Wales aims to ensure that children who have a ‘learning difficulty’ that gives rise to a need for special educational provision are identified and given appropriate support within the education system (or in some cases outside it). It is a complex and continually evolving field of law, recently amended further by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (the 2001 Act). The present law, contained in the Education Act 1996 and in regulations,1 originates in legislation enacted 20 years ago — the Education Act 1981 — and retains many of its key elements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Act Part IV and the Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Consolidation) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3455).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Warnock (Mary) Chair, Special Educational Needs Cmnd 7212 (London: HMSO, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Audit Commission, Special Educational Needs — A Mainstream Issue (London: Audit Commission 2002), p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Introducing into the 1996 Act, new ss 316 and 316A and amending the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. As regards the general policy, see DfEE, SEN and Disability Rights in Education Bill Consultation Document (London: DfEE, 2000), Annex B, para 20. See also, Disability Rights Task Force, From Exclusion to Inclusion (London: DfEE/DRTF, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Act, s 313(2).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Department for Education and Skills, Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (London: DIES, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  7. This is separate from the new duty to carry out assessments of persons above compulsory school age who have a learning difficulty and who are in the last year of schooling, introduced by the Learning and Skills Act 2000, s 140.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Special Educational Needs Code of Practice, supra note 4, p. 85, para 7.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ibid., p. 2, para 8

    Google Scholar 

  10. Audit Commission (2002), supra note 3, p. 6. DfEE, Statistics of Education: Special Educational Needs in England: January 2000, Issue 09/00 (November 2000), p. 7. DfEE supra note 10, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Audit Commission, supra note 3, p. 13, para 38.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See Audit Commission/HMI, Getting in on the Act — Provision for Pupils with Special Educational Needs — the National Picture (London: HMSO, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Supra note 10.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Audit Commission (2002) supra note 3, p. 11, para 31.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See 1996 Act, s 324(2) and the Education (Special Educational Needs) (Consolidation) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3455).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Act, s 324(5)(b).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ibid., schedule 27: see below.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Audit Commission (2002) supra note 3, p. 13, para 38.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R v London Borough of Hillingdon ex parte Governing Body of Queensmead School [1997] ELR 331. See further H. Bines, `Special educational needs in the market place’, Journal of Education Policy (1995), 10(2), 157–171, 159.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Richardson v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal; White and Another v London Borough of Ealing and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal; Hereford and Worcester County Council v Lane [1998] E.L.R. 319 (C.A.), per Beldam LJ at 334H–335A.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Audit Commission (2002) supra note 3, p. 16, Exhibit 2.

    Google Scholar 

  22. DfEE (2000) supra note 10, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Department for Education and Employment, Excellence forAll Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs (London: DfEE, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Audit Commission (2002), supra note 3, p. 21, para 55.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See N. Harris, `Liability under education law in the UK — How much further can it go?’, European Journal for Education Law and Policy (2001), 4, 131–140.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See generally, N. Harris, `Judicial Review and Education’, in T. Buck (ed) Judicial Review and Social Welfare (London: Pinter, 1998), 1–38; P. Meredith, `Judicial review and education’, in B. Hadfield (ed), Judicial Review: A Thematic Approach (Dublin, Gill & Macmillan, 1995), 67–98.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Provision for which is made by the Tribunals and Inquries Act 1992s 11, as amended by the Education Act 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  28. It was previously known as the Special Educational Needs Tribunal.

    Google Scholar 

  29. `Special Educational Needs and Access to Justice — the Role of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal in England and Wales’, in J. de Groof (ed) The Legal Status of Pupils (Kluwer, 1998), 177–194.

    Google Scholar 

  30. N. Harris, Special Educational Needs and Access to Justice (Bristol: Jordans, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  31. [2000] ELR 109.

    Google Scholar 

  32. [1995] ELR 404; 2 AC 633; [1995] 3 WLR 153; [1995] 3 All ER 353; [1995] 2 FLR 276, HL.

    Google Scholar 

  33. [2000] ELR 499; [2000] 3 WLR 776; [2000] 4 All ER 504, HL.

    Google Scholar 

  34. For discussion, see supra note 26.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Special Educational Needs Tribunal Annual Report 2000–2001 (London: SENT, December 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Section 3, inserting s 332B into the 1996 Act.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Queensmead case, supra note 20.

    Google Scholar 

  39. R y Cumbria County Council ex p NB [1996] ELR 65, QBD.

    Google Scholar 

  40. R y Brent and Harrow Health Authority ex p London Borough of Harrow [1997] ELR 187. 42 R y London Borough of Barnet ex p G [1998] ELR 281 QBD and CA. The court held that the tribunal’s order applied from the latter date.

    Google Scholar 

  41. R y Wandsworth London Borough Council ex p M [1998] ELR 424, QBD. The court held that on the facts the LEA could not reasonably have concluded that the teacher they appointed had the necessary experience. See also R y London Borough of Brent and Vassie ex p AF [2000] ELR 550.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Section 336B, added by the 2001 Act. The prescribed period is to be prescribed in regulations. So far, only the Special Educational Needs Tribunal (Time Limits) (Wales) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3982) have been made.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (General Provisions and Disability Claims Procedure) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1985), regs 3 and 5.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/600), reg 7(4) (as substituted by the Special Educational Needs Tribunal (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2787) reg 5).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Educaiton Act 1996 s 312.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See further Ann Blair, `Rights, duties and resources: the case of special educational needs’ (2000) 12: 3 Education & the Law 177–193; S. Riddell et al., The Justice Inherent in the assessment of Special Educational Needs in England and Scotland (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  47. R y East Sussex County Council ex p T [1998] ELR 251; ex p Tandy [1998] EdCR 206, HL.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Act, s 316 and Sched 27 para 3 (below).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Act s 9 (general principle of adhrence to parental wishes as regards the education of their children) and UK reservation to Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR.

    Google Scholar 

  50. `Special educational needs policy and choice’, in M.J. McLaughlin and M. Rouse (eds), Special Education and School Reform in the United States and Britain (London: Routledge, 2000), 126–146.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ibid., p. 141.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  53. R y Portsmouth City Council ex parte Faludy [1999] ELR 115, CA, which concerned an intellectually gifted child who, at the age of 15, won a place at Cambridge University; the Court of Appeal held that the LEA had no duty to support his education under the 1996 Act Part IV. The court held that because the Education Act 1996 states that `nothing in this Act confers any functions with respect to higher education’ (s 1(4)), Part IV of the Act (concerning special educational needs) could not apply in respect of a person’s attendance at a university.

    Google Scholar 

  54. R y Secretary of State for Education ex p C [1 996] ELR 93; R y Portsmouth City Council ex p F [1998] ELR 619.

    Google Scholar 

  55. R y Hampshire Education Authority ex p J (1985) 84 LGR 547, QBD.

    Google Scholar 

  56. R y Lancashire CC ex p CM (A Minor) [1989] 2 FLR 279, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  57. G v London Borough of Barnet and the SENT [1998] ELR 480.

    Google Scholar 

  58. G v Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council, 29 January, 1998 (unreported).

    Google Scholar 

  59. R v London Borough of Lambeth ex p MBM [1995] ELR 374; City of Bradford Metropolitan Council vA [1997] ELR 417, QBD.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bromley London Borough Council v Special Educational Needs Tribunal [1999] ELR 260, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ibid., at 296E.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ibid., at 295G–296A.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Supra note 6, p. 49, para 8.

    Google Scholar 

  64. R y Lancashire County Council ex p CM (A Minor) [1989] 2 FLR 279, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Education Act 1996 ss 323(1), (2) and 324(1).

    Google Scholar 

  66. [2000] ELR 660.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 64 DR 188.

    Google Scholar 

  68. O v London Borough of Harrow and Another, 12 July 2001 [2001] EWHC Admin 542.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Under s 325 of the 1996 Act.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Especially R y Secretary of State for Education and Science ex p Lashford [1988] 1 FLR 72, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  71. R v Secretary of State for Education and Science ex p L [1988] 1 FLR 72 and R v Isle of Wight County Council ex p RS [1993] 1 FLR 634.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Education Act 1996, s 324(3)(b).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Education Act 1996, s 324(5).

    Google Scholar 

  74. On the meaning of `suitable arrangements’, see R v Governors of Hasmonean High School ex p N and E [1994] ELR 343, CA; G v London Borough of Barnet and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal [1998] ELR 480, QBD; White and Another v London Borough of Ealing and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal; Richardson v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council; Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Finn and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal [1998] ELR 203, QBD; and R v London Borough of Hackney ex p GC [1995] ELR 144, QBD and [1996] ELR 142, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Education (Special Educational Needs) (England) (Consolidation) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3455), Sched between Sched 2.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Special Educational Needs Code of Practice (2001), op. cit., p. 37, para 8.

    Google Scholar 

  77. [1992] 1 FLR 377.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Re L [1994] ELR 16 at 22, per Leggatt LJ, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  79. See Joyce v Dorset County Council [1997] ELR 26; C v SENT [1997] ELR 390 and B v Isle of Wight [1997] ELR 279, QBD.

    Google Scholar 

  80. R v Cumbria County Council ex p P [1995] 337 at 348D—E; J v Devon County Council and Strowger [2001] EWHV Admin 958.

    Google Scholar 

  81. L v Clarke and Somerset CC [1998] ELR 129, QBD, per Laws J at 136, applied in H v Leicestershire County Council [2000] ELR 471, QBD; S v City and Council of Swansea [2000] ELR 315, QBD; R (on the application of W) v Bedfordshire County Council ex p B [2001] ELR 645, QBD; E v Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council [2002] ELR 266.

    Google Scholar 

  82. E v LB Newham and SENT [2002] ELR 453, QBD, at paras 36 and 37.

    Google Scholar 

  83. E v Flintshire CC and the SENT [2002] 378, QBD.

    Google Scholar 

  84. L v Hereford and Worcester County Council and Hughes [2000] ELR 375, QBD; L v Worcestershire County Council and Hughes [2000] ELR 674, CA. See also Education Act s 316 above.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Act, Sched 27 para 3(3).

    Google Scholar 

  86. See ibid., s 316A(4).

    Google Scholar 

  87. B v London Borough of Harrow [2000] ELR 109.

    Google Scholar 

  88. R v Chair of Governors and Head Teacher of A and S School ex p T [2000] ELR 274.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Surrey County Council v P and P [1997] ELR 516, QBD, per Kay J at 523C.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Which means the cost for which the LEA itself would be responsible: S v Somerset County Council, 25 July 2002, Administrative Court (unreported).

    Google Scholar 

  91. S and S y Bracknell Forest Borough Council and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal [1999] ELR 51, per Scott Baker J.

    Google Scholar 

  92. W-R y Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and Wall [1999] ELR 528 at 543D—E.

    Google Scholar 

  93. C v Buckinghamshire County Council and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal [1999] ELR 179, CA, per Thorpe LJ at 189F—G.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Oxfordshire County Council y GB and others [2002] ELR 8, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  95. PD and LD y United Kingdom (1989) 62 D.R. 292; Graeme v United Kingdom (1990) 64. D.R. 158; Klerks y Netherlands (1995) 82 D.R. 41. See also W and KL y Sweden (1983) Application No 14688/83, Simpson y United Kingdom (1989) above; Cohen y United Kingdom (1996) 21 E.H.R.R. CD 104.

    Google Scholar 

  96. L y Hereford and Worcester County Council and Hughes [2000] ELR 375.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Ibid., at 384D—E.

    Google Scholar 

  98. [2002] ELR 704, QBD.

    Google Scholar 

  99. [2002] ELR 441, QBD.

    Google Scholar 

  100. See for example Lords Slynn and Clyde in Phelps y London Borough of Hillingdon [2000] ELR 499 at 514D and 533D—E, respectively.

    Google Scholar 

  101. O y London Borough of Harrow and Sherwin [2002] ELR 195, CA, per Sedley LJ at para 30.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Neville Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Jan De Groof Gracienne Lauwers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Harris, N. (2003). Judging Special Educational Needs: The Contribution of the Courts to the Developing Law of Special Educational Needs in England and Wales. In: De Groof, J., Lauwers, G. (eds) Special Education. Yearbook of the European Association for Education Law and Policy, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3050-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3050-1_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6394-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-3050-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation