The Supreme Court has granted permission to the Isle of Wight council to appeal the decision of the High Court in the Jon Platt school holiday fines case.
Isle of Wight dad, Jon Platt, was told by Isle of Wight magistrates, and then the High Court, that he had “no case to answer” for non-payment of school absence fines after taking his daughter out of school for a family holiday.
DfE ‘requested’ appeal
After the High Court ruling, the Department for Education, who are very keen to see the case resolved in the Supreme Court as it will have an impact on public policy across the country, ‘requested’ the council appeal the High Court decision.
They agreed to pay Jon Platt’s legal costs (which were awarded from the High Court case in May 2016 and any future costs for the Isle of Wight council.
Legal aid for Mr Platt
As he is up against the might of the government’s lawyers in this case, Mr Platt was successful in his claim for legal aid.
The Supreme Court has provisionally indicated that the matter may be heard on 31 January 2017.
Supreme Court
The details of the case listed by the Supreme Court are detailed below:
The issue in this case was whether, in the event of an alleged failure by a parent over a specified period to ensure that their child attends school regularly (contrary to section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996), the child’s attendance outside the specified period is relevant to the question whether the offence has been committed.
The respondent requested permission to take his daughter out of school for a holiday. This request was refused by the daughter’s head teacher. The respondent took his daughter out of school on holiday for 7 days. As a result, he was issued with a fixed penalty notice in respect of the absence.
The respondent did not pay the penalty of £60 by the initial deadline and so he was sent a further invoice for £120. The respondent did not pay this either and so he was prosecuted on the basis of his alleged failure to secure regular attendance at school of his daughter, contrary to section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996. The respondent pleaded Not Guilty before the Isle of Wight Magistrates’ Court.
The defence submitted that there was no case to answer as the respondent’s daughter had in fact attended school regularly. The attendance register showed attendance at 92.3. The Magistrates’ Court held that the respondent’s daughter was a regular attender for the purposes of section 444(1), bearing in mind the daughter’s overall percentage attendance. Therefore, they ruled that there was no case to answer.
On appeal, the High Court agreed that the Magistrates’ Court was entitled to take into account attendance outside the offence dates when determining the attendance of the respondent’s daughter. The appellant sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
