Gagged stapled halt stop:

Isle of Wight council sends lawyer to block family telling their school fine story (updated)

The Isle of Wight council is once again in the national news in relation to prosecuting parents for taking children out of school during term time.

The Sunday Times ran a story yesterday which has been picked up by the other national newspapers about a ‘gagging order’ the Isle of Wight council fought to not have lifted on a school holiday fines case against Michael and Charlotte Lewis.

Employer ordered to deduct fines from salary
The couple took their children out of school for a family holiday during term time, due to one child being autistic and unable to be around large crowds.

After arriving home and having moved house, Michael and Charlotte discovered they’d been ordered by the court to pay £1,600 in fines.

They only learnt about this this when their employer, Jon Platt of JMP Partnership, was ordered to deduct the amount owed from their salaries.

Application to lift protection order
The couple contested the fine and the case was set aside (ie. dropped), but due to normal court restrictions when there’s a case involving children, a protection order was put in place to prevent their identities being revealed in any reporting of the case.

After being approached by The Sunday Times, Michael and Charlotte Lewis filed an application to have the order lifted so their story could be told.

Council opposition
OnTheWight understands the Isle of Wight Council had originally told the couple they would not oppose the application to lift the order. We put a query into the Isle of Wight council about this, but at time of publishing they had not responded (see update below).

However, when Michael Lewis appeared in court on Friday morning (representing himself), he unexpectedly faced opposition from the IWC’s lawyers.

IWC fought dirty
According to Jon Platt, it appears the council lawyers fought dirty in court accusing the Lewis’ of attempting to profit from the story. The Lewis’ argued the story was in the public interest.

Despite the IWC opposition in court, Michael Lewis won the case and the order was lifted.

No comment
OnTheWight tried to get a comment from the council on Friday afternoon but were told,

“The Isle of Wight Council will not be commenting on this matter at this time.”

Update 16.05
A spokesperson from Isle of Wight council told OnTheWight,

“The council did not formally oppose, or consent to, the application made to the magistrates’ court on Friday in relation to reporting restrictions. It had representation at court to make appropriate submissions to ensure that the court was aware of all the relevant background.”

Article edit
Statement from IWC added 11.7.2016 at 4.05pm.

Image: tobifirestone under CC BY 2.0

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
14 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
auntsally
11, July 2016 1:33 pm

More wasted money by our utterly useless council… what an embarrassment … just give it up..and stop wasting the little bit of money we have to spend on our island.

Wightbiker
11, July 2016 2:22 pm

What i want to know is why doesn’t the Department for Education actually step up and admit they are pulling strings here as they don’t want to admit the Holidays in Term Time directive was flawed? Failing this, after his attempts to put a positive spin on some poor KS2 SATS results why doesn’t Councillor Bacon walk as clearly the Education Department on this island is failing.… Read more »

Mariner58
11, July 2016 2:42 pm

It seems just a little too ‘cosy’ that shortly before Mr Platt faces a Supreme court hearing over term time holidays, two of his employees decide to parade their children’s names, one of whom is autistic, through the national press over a similar issue even though their fine was rescinded.
Wightbiker is right, this needs to be heard and a judgement given as quickly as possible.

Pastor John
Reply to  Mariner58
11, July 2016 3:16 pm

The Supreme Court hearing (if one is agreed) is likely to be months if not a year away, so hardly ‘shortly before’.

Nitonia
11, July 2016 4:00 pm

Avoiding crowds is not (in my view) an acceptable reason for taking holidays outside of school hols. If you want to avoid crowds then go somewhere quiet. Acceptable reasons need to be associated with the facts that within some occupations leave during school holiday isn’t possible. Tourism, Military etc. If we go back to the HT having discretion to grant up to 10 days (which I would… Read more »

Island Monkey
11, July 2016 7:00 pm

Grotesque abuse of power by a local council. Who do these people think they are? It’s pathetic, gross self-importance by the few using OUR money.

nico
Reply to  Island Monkey
11, July 2016 7:22 pm

It’s the Council getting the legal advice, not us, and they have to respond accordingly. Things can look very different once a lawyer starts explaining the ins and outs. Sounds like they’re not yet able to say very much, nor would I expect them to, in the midst of a legal wrangle like this. They’re not using much of our money on it, (if any), as the… Read more »

Rhyme
Reply to  nico
12, July 2016 7:30 am

You say “Sounds like a good principle, not to have children’s names revealed as a result of court action.” This is not a case of abuse – where the restrictions would be justified – the family were clearly Ok with the identities of their children being revealed – so why did the council challenge it and why did they play dirty in court? It all sounds very… Read more »

John
12, July 2016 7:52 am

How did £1600 build up in fines? Was part of this costs from a magistrate court case that they lost? Can a council seek a deduction from an employer? I thought that was a court option. All takes time – they returned home and moved house! Royal mail also have a redirection service! Sounds like we only have a subset of the relevant information… and so coincidental… Read more »

Nitonia
12, July 2016 8:00 am

Difficult one, the family didn’t immediately want the restrictions lifted and only did after they were approached by a journalist. This suggests that they were attempting to make a profit from this. As for playing dirty in court, is this interpretation or fact? Plenty of the former and a little of the latter maybe? What this demands though is that he DofE sort this out quickly now.… Read more »

Rhyme
Reply to  Nitonia
12, July 2016 8:42 am

You know for a fact that the family “didn’t immediately want the restrictions lifted” do you? The way I read it, they didn’t even know there were restrictions until the Sunday Times approached them. The court would not have ‘set aside’ the case they appealed unless it had good reason to. As for the coincidence that they work for Jon Platt, it seems to be just that,… Read more »

Nitonia
Reply to  Rhyme
12, July 2016 8:57 am

I didn’t state it as a fact. You read it differently to me and that’s fair enough.

Mariner58
12, July 2016 11:22 am

There are several issues raised the foremost being the assumption that there is or should be a legal right to holidays away. Many caring nuclear families don’t, some for financial reasons, many for other medical or social reasons. I know that some parents of autistic children find the trauma of removing them from their known domestic routines extremely stressful. There are however degrees of autism and some… Read more »

tr
Reply to  Mariner58
13, July 2016 11:58 am

whats all this guff about ‘needing’ holidays anyway?

we live on a beautiful island. go to the beach! use the school holidays and enjoy the island!

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined