My Image

Call: 01273 573816
24 hour emergency number: 07747 753232

Call: 01273 573816
24 hour emergency number: 07747 753232

Use Messenger or Whatsapp


Criminalising Parents - Local Authority School Non-Attendance Prosecutions - S.444 Education Act 1996

Criminalising Parents

Local Authority School Non-Attendance Prosecutions

Fixed Penalties and S.444 Education Act 1996

One, not untypical, morning I found myself shouting at my daughter to get in the car “right now or I will drive to school without you”.As the mum of an only child driving to school without my daughter would have been a daft endeavour. Luckily my daughter did appear and once again she made it to class just about on time and with most of the right things in her school bag.

Some parents are not so lucky. Their children do not attend school. Unfortunately, the response from Local Authorities is often to criminalise the parents. In 2017 16,400 parents were prosecuted and of these 120 received a prison sentence.

A brilliant piece of research published in January 2019* focused on the reasons why this happens and calling for a new approach of treating non attendance as a child welfare issue rather than a criminal one. 60% of the respondents stated that their child was being bullied and 100% that the family were suffering other stresses. The researchers stated their view that “the current law is cruel and discriminatory” and their main conclusion was that “the criminal law should not be applied to parents whose children do not attend school regularly". This research struck a chord with me as I have noticed an increase in these prosecutions in my local courts.

The first response to an unauthorised absence is often the School reporting this to the Local Authority who have the power to issue Fixed Penalty Notices. The penalty is £60 and this rises to £120 if paid after 21 days but within 28 days. Each Local Authority should publish a ‘Code of Conduct’ for Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN). Failure to pay may result in a decision to prosecute. If a parent receives an FPN or a summons it is important to consider whether or not the Local Authority has complied with its Code of Conduct and its prosecution policy. If they have not they may be persuaded to reconsider or consideration should be given to legal challenge.

When the Local Authority prosecute, they do so by issuing a summons for one of the two offences within Section 444 of the Education Act 1996. S.444(1) is an offence that is made out when there is a lack of regular attendance and can result in a fine of up to £1000. S.444(1A) is the aggravated offence and requires the parent to have knowledge of the absence and that they failed to act. This can result in a fine of up £2,500 and up to 3 months custody.

The definition of “regular attendance” was aired in the 2017 “Isle of Wight” case. A father, Mr Platt wished to take his daughter on holiday during term time and asked for permission from the Head Teacher. When this was refused, he took her on holiday anyway. As a point of principle, he refused to pay the Fixed Penalty Notice and his council prosecuted. The Magistrates Court acquitted him. The Council successfully appealed. The Court held that the correct interpretation of “regularly” was “in accordance with the rules” of the school. Many parents view this as a harsh interpretation.

There are, though, statutory defences available. To the more serious, aggravated offence, there is a “reasonable justification” defence. General defences include

  • An authorised absence (the head teacher allows)
  • Sickness or ‘unavoidable cause’ in an emergency.
  • A day set apart for religious observance.
  • The Local Authority has a duty to provide travel help to school and failed to do so
  • The parents’ trade or business requires them to travel from place to place.

These defences have been debated in the courts. For instance, In January 2019, The Court of Appeal, in Somerset Council v RS, looked at the availability of the defence in S.444(2A). It is a defence if “the parent proves that at that time the child was prevented from attending by reason of sickness or any unavoidable cause”. It was held that a parent can give evidence regarding sickness but if the reason is anxiety some further evidence would be required.

When dealing with these prosecutions as a defence advocate it is imperative that consideration is given to why the child missed school, the input of the Local Authority in supporting the family, and whether the prosecution should have been brought in the first place. It may be that the Local Authority can be persuaded to withdraw the prosecution. Parents must also be taken through the defences available and if applicable then consideration of the evidence required to present the defence must be given. If a conviction is unavoidable, given the penalties that are available, it is important that any mitigating circumstances are put before the court.

*Rona Epstein, Coventry Law School, Geraldine Brown, Coventry University, Sarah O’Flynn, Roehampton Institute, 14 January 2019 Oakdale Trust

My Legal Life

I always wanted to be a lawyer but took an indirect route. As a pink-haired teen, I was more interested in music and politics than studying. I left Lincolnshire for a London squat and had a wonderful time. I worked as a dresser in the West End; was a PA to Vanessa Redgrave; and even sold shirts door-to-door in the City.

At 21 I decided to get back to my books. By day, I sold ad space for the Evening Standard; by night, I attended lectures at Birkbeck and King’s College London. After the LPC, most students were off to practise corporate law. That didn’t interest me. I wanted to do something I saw as more meaningful.

A week’s work experience at Tottenham Hotspur’s legal department led to employment by a local crime firm as a probationary police station rep. My first call-out saw me locked in a cell with a huge naked burglar who had refused the paper suit. I could hear the desk sergeants guffawing as I, red-faced, tried to focus on giving my legal advice.

Read the full article on the Law Gazette website.

Justice failing the young?

Youth Courts are retaining jurisdiction in ever more serious cases.The orthodox view is that Youth Courts are the right venue for under-18s. The 2017 Youth Sentencing Guideline states that ’young people should be tried in the Youth Court’ as it is ’best designed to meet their specific needs’. It now seems that unless there is a statutory bar to a Youth Court trial, as in homicide, then summary trial it will be. As a youth justice solicitor I think this is unfair.

The latest quarterly MoJ figures show that 98% of defendants facing summary trial are convicted, compared with 81% who are tried by juries. The right to jury trial is the backbone of our criminal justice system. Adults choose or are sent to the Crown Court in either way or indictable cases. Under-18s have no choice and even in rape cases. it is now usual for them to have a Youth Court trial.

Read the full article on the Law Gazette website.

Should Youth Justice be recognised as a specialism?

The Bar Standards Board has announced that later this year there will be compulsory registration of barristers working in the Youth Court, and in February they published their guidance document Youth Proceedings Competences. These changes are in response to the BSB and CILEx Regulation-commissioned report ‘The Youth Proceedings Advocacy Review’, which found that there is a lack of specialist training for Youth Court advocates and that advocacy was ‘highly variable’.

But what of solicitors? Is it time to recognise youth justice as a specialism?

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has responded by publishing on its website ‘a specialist support package for solicitors working in youth courts’. The focus is on recognising and responding to the particular vulnerabilities of children caught up in the criminal justice system and highlights the importance of working with other agencies. The accompanying notes point out that more than 60% of young people and children in the criminal justice system have significant speech, language, and communication difficulties.

Read the full article on the Legal Voice website.

Show more posts

Tildens is a trading name of Tildens Ltd. | Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. SRA NO: 633830 | Terms and Conditions
Director: Sarah Smith. Registered in England and Wales | Company Number: 10334130 Registered Office: 95, Ditchling Road, Brighton, BN1 4ST

My Image