That does not sound right to us!

Background

Alfie was the only one out of nearly three hundred in catchment year 6 pupils to be denied a place at his local comprehensive school.  He lost his appeal 2:1. We say that there are a lot of things wrong with this decision.  Alfie will not be the only one to have suffered injustice in this way.  Full story on the petition here: https://chng.it/WtL2jZMV

Please sign and share if you can.  The more supporters Alfie has, the more we get listened to.

Previously, we wrote about what is wrong with the decision itself.  Here is a different issue.

The clerk to the appeal panel was not independent.  He was Newport City Council’s own in-house solicitor.  The very same solicitor who is fighting the case against Alfie on behalf of the Council.

The panel consists of three members who are advised and assisted by a clerk.

The appeals process is governed by the School Admission Appeals Code 2013.

The Code outlines the clerk’s function.  The clerk makes the administrative arrangements, explains the procedures, manages the evidence, is an “…independent source of advice on procedure, the Codes and the law……” he records the proceedings and deals with correspondence.[1] 

The Code tells us that the clerk “…has an important part to play ensuring that the relevant facts are established, compliance with regulations is maintained and that the appeal hearing is fair.”[2]

The appeal is effectively a dispute between the Local Authority and the pupil; “Appeal panels are carrying out a judicial function…”[3] (our emphasis). You would think therefore that independence would the absolute minimum that the appealing pupil could expect.

Anyone one employed by the Local Authority is disqualified from sitting on an appeal panel.[4] This seems obvious, they are a party to the dispute, but what about the clerk?

The Local Authority “should normally look outside their own staff…” to appoint a clerk.[5]

Why then did the Local Authority choose not to follow the guidance; why did they use their own in-house solicitor? 

I asked the local authority why they did not follow the guidance in the Code.  They dismissed the question merely saying that it was not compulsory.  This is true and needs to be changed.  But even so, surely, they should at least explain what is not normal about this appeal so that they did not follow the guidance.

"Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”  In law, the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256

The appeal decision in this case appears to be biased because the panel’s sole source of advice and guidance was from one of the parties.  Given Newport City Council’s record in this dispute we doubt there was no influence on the appeal panel, in any event it unquestionably appears biased.

It is difficult to understand why Newport City Council do not consider it appropriate to re-run Alfie’s appeal, for this and other reasons.

Thank you so much for your support.  Alfie’s chances of success would be so much less without you!

[1] Paragraph 3.4 School Admission Appeals Code 2013
[2] Paragraph 3.2 School Admission Appeals Code 2013
[3] Paragraph 1.9 School Admission Appeals Code 2013
[4] Paragraph 2.3 School Admission Appeals Code 2013
[5] Paragraph 3.3 School Admission Appeals Code 2013