Case Help - Ali [2006] UKHL 14 (1 Viewer)

[sarahmk]

hi guys can anyone help me with the Case Ali (FC) v Headteacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] i need to identify the grounds for appeal and issues.

any help would be great
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o>:wave: </o>
<o></o>


The decision

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: Grounds for Appeal and Issues

How about you first read the case and tell us what you think the issues are.

 

[melsc]

Re: Grounds for Appeal and Issues

Take your time and read it carefully, judges will make reference to such things its hard sometimes to isolate it, it takes a little getting used to. I'll have a look if I get a chance after my two exams on Monday, but good luck

 

[sarahmk]

well uh i know no need to be so rude obviously that is what happened but what shall i say to my tutor

he burnt the fucking school down i dont think so

for your information i wanted know what the grounds of appeal and main issues were in legal terms not idiotic terms

oh and thanks for other replies im in the middle of reading the case again and posting my opinion of issues and grounds for appeal

 

[sarahmk]

please help!!

:mad1: please help me out guys

iv been given this question and i just carnt find the answer its driving me crazy
heres the question anyone any answers guidances clues for me much appreciated:wave:

Reasoning of the Court base your reasoning solely on the judgment of Lord Nicholls – you may wish to refer numerous secondary sources to help your discussion)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
The following issues should be discussed
Was the exclusion of the respondent (Ali) lawful under the “code” contained in ss 64-67 of the School Standards and Framework Act, 1998?<o></o>
If the exclusion was unlawful under the “code”; did it give rise to private law rights? Please explain the distinction between public/private law rights.<o></o>
On what basis did Lord Nicholls disagree with the reasoning of Sedley LJ in the Court of Appeal concerning article 2 of the First Protocol of the ECHR?

 

[Frigid]

geez sarah it's the holidays...

 

[sam04u]

Re: please help!!

:mad1: please help me out guys

iv been given this question and i just carnt find the answer its driving me crazy
heres the question anyone any answers guidances clues for me much appreciated:wave:

Reasoning of the Court base your reasoning solely on the judgment of Lord Nicholls – you may wish to refer numerous secondary sources to help your discussion)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
The following issues should be discussed
Was the exclusion of the respondent (Ali) lawful under the “code” contained in ss 64-67 of the School Standards and Framework Act, 1998?<o></o>
If the exclusion was unlawful under the “code”; did it give rise to private law rights? Please explain the distinction between public/private law rights.<o></o>
On what basis did Lord Nicholls disagree with the reasoning of Sedley LJ in the Court of Appeal concerning article 2 of the First Protocol of the ECHR?

Alright I'm not going to answer the question for you but I'll help.

The grounds for appeal was the extended period of time where he was excluded from school (In excess of 80 days when the procedure allows for a maximum of 45) and the provisions which the school took in not providing him with proper assistance whilst excluded.

As of the 7th of July under the European Convention of Human Rights he was either to be permanently expelled from the school or returned to the school but neither was done in clear violation of the convention. Here is the sections which you have to respond with;

Act, section 64(4). Only the head teacher may exclude a pupil, which may be for a fixed period or periods (not exceeding a total of 45 days in a school year) or permanently: 1998 Act, section 64 (1) and (2). A pupil may not be otherwise suspended or expelled: 1998 Act, section 64(3). Where a pupil is excluded the head teacher has a duty to give certain information to a parent or the pupil (section 65), the governing body has a duty in certain cases to consider the matter (section 66) and the LEA must make arrangements for an effective right of appeal by the pupil in some cases (section 67). The head teacher, the governing body and the LEA must have regard to guidance given on exclusion by the Secretary of State from time to time (section 68).

So basically those are the grounds for appeal. Good luck in writing your essay and scouting for more information.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Well that is the argument of the respondent, and indeed the issue, but not the grounds of appeal. The school is the appellant.

The grounds of appeal were that the Court of Appeal erred in taking the view that the exclusion from the school after the criminal proceedings had been discontinued was a breach of Article 2 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.