Pupils who spent up to half a year in “unpleasant and distressing” isolation rooms have lost a High Court battle against their school’s “rigorous” behaviour policy.
High Court judge Justice Collins Rice called the practice “stigmatising” and “deliberately under-stimulating” – but found the school had not “crossed the boundaries of what the law or good practice permits”.
Despite this, the youngsters are urging government “to give serious consideration to the now widespread and repeated use of isolation” as they consider whether to appeal the decision.
‘Rigorous’ behaviour policy
A judicial review was lodged with the High Court in Leeds against the “repeated isolation and suspensions” of three pupils at John Smeaton Academy when they were aged between 12 and 14.
The children’s legal team said isolation involved sitting “in a three-sided booth in a dedicated ‘isolation’ room in enforced silence for six hours a day without being allowed to interact with or speak to peers, including at breaks and lunch time, and without active or meaningful teaching”.
All three, who have been given different names to protect their identities, have “special educational or additional needs affecting their behaviour”, a skeleton argument filed by their lawyers claimed. GORSE Academies Trust, which runs John Smeaton, disputes this for one of the pupils.
In her judgement, issued today, Collins Rice noted the school “has a distinctive mission and ethos to enhance the life opportunities of children particularly from disadvantaged or complicated backgrounds”.
This is done “by developing their self-management, social and academic skills, in combination and in close parallel, through applying a ‘rigorous’ and highly detailed conduct and discipline policy”.
Isolation rooms ‘a deterrent’
Lawyers for the children said data obtained from GORSE showed 187 pupils – 31 per cent of those at the school – served an “isolation sanction” in 2023-24.
The claimants also “experienced a high recurrence of sanctions” that “resulted in their passing substantial proportions of this academic year, in aggregate, outside ordinary classroom education”.
They claimed this was “unlawful” due to it being “inconsistent with the statute law limiting schools’ sanctioning powers and with government guidance”.
They said it was the “result of defective and over-rigid decision-making which failed to factor in the sheer cumulation of time out of class…and contrary to their human rights”.
One pupil, known as Lydia, spent 83 days in isolation and 14 days suspended in 2023-24, equating to more than half of the academic year.
Her lawyers said for most of the time in isolation she “just stare[d] at the walls of the booth” and “[couldn’t] understand what they [were] asking [her] to do in the work that [was] given”.
The practice made her feel “really stressed” and “[w]hen [she’s] stressed it makes [her] angry, and then [she does] things that get [her] warnings, which gets more Iso[lation]”.
School did not break law, judge says
Collins Rice labelled the practice “stigmatising” and “deliberately under-stimulating”. However, she noted it is “intended as such to be a deterrent and a sanction”.
She said the “cumulation of time spent in isolation has to be considered not only through the negative lens of timeout of the classroom, but through the positive lens of time in the school”.
In documents submitted to the court, GORSE’s legal team said assessing proportionality was “exactly the exercise carried out by its staff, particularly the senior staff members who review isolation decisions”.
It also claimed children were “not actually isolated – on any one day there are generally around ten pupils working in each of the two isolation rooms”.
Some behaviour that led to isolation included physically assaulting another pupil, absconding from lessons and “screaming at other students”.
Collins Rice stated “even the most ‘rigorous’” of discipline policies “must be applied with an open mind as to whether there might be anything about an individual frequently-sanctioned student’s circumstances which calls for flexibility or a different approach”.
But she was unable to find the school had “failed to do what the law requires, or has crossed the boundaries of what the law or good practice permits”.
Calls on government
“These judicial review claims ask a court to intervene in the professional world of education provision (and parental choice), including in ways that do not appear to be precedented,” Collins Rice continued.
“I have not found a principled legal or factual basis for doing so. The claims are dismissed accordingly.”
Simpson Millar lawyer Dan Rosenberg, who represented the claimants, said the children’s evidence was “clear: being regularly placed in isolation was unproductive, unpleasant, and distressing”.
They are “extremely disappointed by the outcome and are taking advice on an appeal” but hope the “case will shine a wider public light on the issues raised”.
Rosenberg added: “In particular, they urge policymakers to give serious consideration to the now widespread and repeated use of isolation in mainstream schools, especially in the context of ongoing conversations about how best to support and include children with special educational needs and disabilities.”
However, a GORSE spokesperson said the “judgment is a clear endorsement of the work we have done over many years to promote high standards of behaviour”.
While it was “regrettable” the claims were brought “at significant public expense”, the verdict sends a “strong message” across the sector “about the right of schools to apply appropriate sanctions when behaviour falls short”.
Your thoughts