The Isle of Wight Council has today (Wednesday) received confirmation that leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted in relation to the Jon Platt case seeking clarification on the law relating to unauthorised school absence.
The Council made the application for leave to appeal at the request of the Minister of State for Schools and will now discuss with Department for Education (DfE) officials on how to take the appeal forward.
Local businessman Jon Platt refused to pay a minor £60 fine for taking his daughter on holiday during term time. He later ended up before the Isle of Wight Magistrates Court, where it was ruled he had no case to answer. The Isle of Wight Council refused to accept this decision and took the matter to the High Court, where Platt also won his case.
The Supreme Court has today said:
“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.
Article continues below this advertisement “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”.
The Supreme Court has provisionally indicated that the matter may be heard on 31st January 2017.
