“I regret to inform you that I have decided to exclude [A] from school. The exclusion is initially for a fixed period of ten days while further investigations are completed. The allegations about [A] are serious ones and he may be facing permanent exclusion for dealing in drugs…. The reason for this exclusion is that [A] has sold ‘weed’ to other pupils at the school. Money and the drugs have been exchanged on school premises to boys in his own year and possibly to two boys in the year below. It is also alleged that he has made arrangements to buy further supplies, taking one of the year 9 boys with him. [A] and others admit to other non-illegal purchases from a store in Cheam but two of the other boys, now serving fixed term exclusions, say that they paid for and received ‘weed’ from [A] which they took to be marijuana….”
“I regret to inform you of my decision to exclude [A] permanently from school for dealing substances believed to be illegal drugs (and not just a herbal smoking mixture from [a local shop] on the school premises to other pupils of the school. [A] also arranged a meeting for the purpose of procuring drugs and took a younger boy to this meeting. … [A] has not had a very good year in terms of his disciplinary record, including an episode of shop lifting, but the permanent exclusion is not seen as a cumulative thing but a response to a single serious breach of school discipline in dealing in forbidden substances on the school premises…”
“The Committee, having taken into account the thorough and lengthy committee proceedings, the additional papers served on the Committee at the meeting’s start, the School’s published policies and DfES guidance, has decided to uphold [A]’s exclusion. The reasons for the Committee’s decision are as follows: a) [A] admitted selling an unauthorised drug in the form of smoking materials, which he maintained was a herbal mixture, on School premises for profit. b) In spite of some conflicting statements there was sufficient evidence to show that the boys who purchased the material from [A] believed they were purchasing ‘weed’ or cannabis. c) [A] admitted that he had arranged a meeting with a younger boy present for the purpose of meeting a boy who he believed could supply illegal drugs. d) In supplying a smoking material of unknown content [A] had risked endangering the health of several boys. e) [A] had broken the School Rules by bringing smoking materials onto School premises and had breached the Governing Body’s substance abuse policy by trading an unauthorised drug on the premises Before coming to a decision, the Committee satisfied itself that: • although the investigation lacked the rigour of a full criminal investigation there was only a duty on the Headmaster to establish on the balance of probability that the offence had been committed. • there was not a requirement on the Headmaster to report the matter to the police. • the Headmaster was not obliged by DfES Guidance to consider, and record his consideration of, a full range of lesser options than permanent exclusion when a case related to supplying drugs. The Committee considered that to allow [A] to remain in School would seriously harm the education and welfare of others in the School and that exclusion was an appropriate response to very serious breaches of the School’s behaviour policy….”
“Decisions i) That [A] was responsible for the behaviour complained of, which was in breach of the School’s Substance Abuse Policy, and leading to the permanent exclusion that took place on18 May 2007 . ii) That permanent exclusion was a reasonable response to [A]’s behaviour. iii) Given (ii) above the appeal is dismissed and [A] should not be reinstated to [the School]. Findings and Reasons 1) That the criteria of [A] was he was acknowledged that he had a reputation within the School as ‘hard’. He demonstrated a willingness to set up meetings purportedly for the purchase of illegal drugs, which was consistent with such a reputation, [A] appeared content to have such a reputation within the School. 2) On the balance of probabilities, the Panel found that [A] had dealt substances believed by the Headteacher and the purchasers of the substances to be illegal drugs, on the School’s premises. 3) On the balance of probabilities, it had been shown [A] attempted to arrange a meeting for the purposes of procuring drugs, and took a younger pupil to the proposed meeting.”
“The Panel considered, whether or not in all the circumstances it was proportionate to permanently exclude [A]. The Panel considered in the context of the School and its recent history and the particularly serious circumstances of this case involving younger pupils, it was proportionate in all the circumstances. The Panel considered that the Headteacher’s decision to permanently exclude [A] was a measured decision, that the Headteacher had taken into account the seriousness of the incident, particularly involving younger boys, and had considered whether alternative options were suitable, but on balance, considered it was proportionate. Whilst the Panel was reassured that the final decision was taken by the Headteacher and was reliant on the Headteacher’s own interviews with the pupils and parents, the Panel noted serious concerns in respect of how the interviews were undertaken. The Panel recognised that whilst the high standard expected as regards interviews under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would be excessive in a school environment, on balance the Panel considered that the conduct of the interviews and proper note taking were a deficiency in respect of the School and the Panel will be making recommendations to the School in relation to those issues. The Panel acknowledged that there were inconsistencies with evidence from the pupils. However, on balance the Panel considered that there was a strong weight of evidence as to what substances the boys believed they were purchasing and despite some procedural difficulties that evidence was decisive.”
“The standard of proof to be applied is the balance of probabilities, i.e. if it is more probable than not that the pupil did what he or she is alleged to have done, then the head teacher may exclude the pupil. However, the more serious the allegation, the more convincing the evidence substantiating the allegation needs to be. This is not the same as requiring the criminal standard to be applied but it does mean that when investigating more serious allegations, head teachers will need to gather and take account of a wider range of evidence (extending in some instances to evidence of the pupil’s past behaviour), in determining whether it is more probable than not that the pupil has committed the offence.”
“This is not the same as requiring the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to be applied. But it does mean that when investigating more serious allegations, in determining whether it is distinctly more probable than not that the pupil has committed the offence, head teachers will need to gather and take account of the wider range of evidence. In some cases this may extend to evidence of the pupil’s past behaviour, if relevant to the seriousness of the present allegation.”
“11. A decision to exclude a child permanently is a serious one. It will be usually the final step in a process for dealing with disciplinary offences following a wide range of other strategies, which have been tried without success. It is an acknowledgment by the school that it has exhausted all available strategies for dealing with the child and should normally be used as a last resort. 12. There will, however, be exceptional circumstances where, in the head teacher’s judgment, it is appropriate to permanently exclude a child for a first or ‘one off’ offence. These might include: …. c) supplying an illegal drug …. 13. These instances are not exhaustive, but indicate the severity of such offences and the fact that such behaviour can affect the discipline and well-being of the school community.”
“A decision to exclude a child permanently is a serious one and should only be taken where the basic facts have been clearly established on the balance of probabilities.”
“The school may not introduce new reasons for the exclusion.”
“Smoking is forbidden when students are in school uniform; and no student may smoke, or have smoking materials, drugs or alcohol in school or when involved in any school activity.”
“I have given what was perceived to be drugs to [O] outside room 60 and he paid me for them”
“I first bought 1 spliff off [A] before half-term. It started when I asked [A] whether he could get me any weed. He said yes and that it was£2.50 a spliff. I paid him the money 2 days later…. [A] told me that it was weed, but I wasn’t 100% sure. He gave it to me outside [Mr D’s] room. I kept it in my blazer pocket for the next couple of days before smoking it with [A] after school one time. I enjoyed it, so a week or 2 later I asked [A] whether he could get me any more. He asked how many I wanted, and I told him I wanted 2. I paid him almost straight away£5 . I think he got them to me the next day but I’m not really sure. I then smoked it on Saturday with friends from outside of school in Kingston. I haven’t asked for any from [A] since…”
“What made him think it was weed? I asked for weed and [A] said he could get me some. I thought it was real. You have been to [the local shop] with [A] - was the so called “weed” not just smoking substitute from there? No, I don’t think so.”
“[K] says that [A] uses the word “weed” to describe what he is providing the others. [K] says [A] is open to him and would not need to fake it. [K] has smelt the fruitiness and assumed it was weed. [K] says that [S] also uses the term weed.”
“I would point out that I never understood the term ‘weed’ to be anything other than a playful reference to the legal herbs that I had obtained earlier. I realise that ‘weed’ can mean cannabis but in the context of the discussion I understood it to be a joking reference to the legal herbs.”
“It is recognised by these statements that a possible source of confusion is the failure to bear in mind with sufficient clarity the fact that in some contexts a court or tribunal has to look at the facts more critically or more anxiously than in others before it can be satisfied to the requisite standard. The standard itself is, however, finite and unvarying. Situations which make such heightened examination necessary may be the inherent unlikelihood of the occurrence taking place…, the seriousness of the allegations to be proved or, in some cases, the consequences which could flow from acceptance of proof of the relevant fact. The seriousness of the allegation requires no elaboration: a tribunal of fact will look closely into the facts grounding an allegation of fraud before accepting that it has been established. The seriousness of consequences is another facet of the same proposition: if it is alleged that a bank manager has committed a minor peculation, that could entail very serious consequences for his career, so making it less likely that he would risk doing such a thing. These are all matters of ordinary experience, requiring the application of good sense on the part of those who have to decide such issues. They do not require a different standard of proof or a specially cogent standard of evidence, merely appropriately careful consideration by the tribunal before it is satisfied of the matter which has to be established.”
“… but I agree with the observation of Lord Steyn in [R (McCann) v Crown Court at Manchester at [37]], that clarity would be greatly enhanced if the courts said simply that although the proceedings were civil the nature of the particular issue involved made it appropriate to apply the criminal standard.”
“Balance of proof and guidance given in relation to the burden of proof being a civil burden of proof and not a criminal burden of proof.”
“Boys have approached [A] for weed and have been sold things (spliffs and bags of leaf), taking it to be weed. When larger quantities have been asked for [A] has, on two occasions, made arrangements for this to happen. These last two sentences are the core reason why [A] deserves to be permanently excluded from [the School].”
“146. Where the panel accept that the individual committed the offence in question, they must consider whether the response is proportionate…. 148. In deciding on… whether or not to uphold an exclusion… the panel must balance the interest of the excluded pupil… against the interests of all the other members of the school community….”