Parents submitting a second appeal as a result of the adjudication that the 2016 admissions criteria were unfair will need to check whether they will be involved in an Infant Class Size appeal (ICS). This will occur where no classes in the admission year have a class size of less than 30 pupils. The process is governed by education law relating to this particular issue.
This short article gives some advice as to how best to approach Part A of the fresh appeals.
Part A of the School Admissions Appeal
In Part A of the appeal process the Appeal Panel will have to consider whether:
admitting one extra child would breach the Infant Class Size limit of 30
whether the admission arrangements were lawful
if so, whether the admission arrangements were correctly and impartially applied to your child
was the decision to refuse admission reasonable in the circumstances of the case
In an Infant Class Size appeal, the panel can find in your favour at Part A if:
there isn’t in fact an Infant Class Size issue e.g. one class has less than 30
the arrangements in place were unlawful or incorrectly applied AND the child would have been offered a place otherwise
the original decision was legally unreasonable
The panel can find against you in Part A where:
the admissions arrangements were lawful and correctly applied or
the admission arrangements were unlawful and incorrectly applied BUT you child wouldn’t have been offered a place even if properly applies, and
the original decision to refuse you a place was not legally unreasonable
Writing Your Appeal Statement
As a result, when drafting your written statement of appeal, you will need to bear in mind the following:
It will be best that you draft a new appeal document rather than rely upon your old statement. This will allow you to structure your argument to take into account the facts of the decision of the Office of the Schools Adjudicator which answers the second of the Part A questions in your favour.
Proceed on the basis that you will have to pursue an Infant Class Size Appeal unless told otherwise.
Although the council representative ought to accept the criteria were unlawful, that concession hasn’t yet been made. As a result, you will wish to make reference to the key features of the Adjudicator’s report including the admission codes that have been breached. You will also want to stress that although the report applies to a single school it is of application across Nottinghamshire.
You may wish to rehearse the failure in the consultation process by the council that has led to this situation arising.
Although you may not have this information yet, you will wish to set out a belief that your child would have received a place at your desired school under the fair criteria. If you know this as a fact at this stage then you ought to set it out in the statement. This will arise, for example, where you know that a child out of catchment without a sibling in the school has been admitted in preference to your child.
Documents In Support
Documents that could usefully be attached in support are:
the Adjudicator’s decision
a timeline (and Fairness for Siblings will no doubt be able to help) as to the failure to consult
the relevant Codes of Practice with the codes said to have been breached highlighted
The deadline for submission of an indication of a wish to appeal is 6 March 2017. The deadline for submission of the paperwork is 20 March. Any further information can be submitted up to 5 working days before the appeal is to be heard.
The response should contain additional information from the council that will either support or undermine your arguments. You will have an opportunity to decide how best to deal with that material then.
We will post information about how to approach Part B of the process soon, as well as some information to prepare 2017 parents for what might happen next.
Contact Us About Nottinghamshire School Admissions
If you are affected by these issues surrounding Nottinghamshire school admissions and how to prepare and Infant Class Size appeal for the year 2016/2017 then please contact us by email here or telephone Andrew Wesley on 0115 9599550 to discuss steps that you can take and whether we are able to help with this area of education law.
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Chesterfield Crime Solicitor Kevin Tomlinson
His client was now before the court for a new offence. The allegation was one of drink driving. She was subject to a suspended sentence imposed only six weeks earlier. She faced obvious difficulties in keeping her liberty.
The Allegation
The charge was excess alcohol. Her reading was 61 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millimetres of breath. The legal limit is 35 micrograms.
Kevin’s client attracted attention to herself because of her car was stuck in mud on a steep grassy bank. This was at the rear of a pub. The engine was switched on and was revving. The wheels were spinning. It appeared to the Officers that the car had been driven from the Pub carpark onto the grass bank and had then got stuck.
Without the suspended sentence being in place, it was likely that bearing in mind the low reading the penalty would be a fine and disqualification. The recent imposition of the suspended sentenec meant that the court would immediately think of activating the sentence. There would be a separate penalty for the new offence.
Kevin took full instructions from the client to put before the Court. His intention was to convince the Magistrates’ that it would be unjust to send his client to prison in all of the circumstances. His client had never been to prison so it was important that she instructed an experienced advocate who knew the type on information he needed to seek to ensure a favourable outcome.
After spending this time, Kevin then spoke with a representative of the probation service. They told him that his client was progressing well on her suspended sentence order. This enabled Kevin to argue that she ought to receive a further opportunity to work with the probation service.
The Sentence
Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court
As he had spent the time necessary to seek full instructions and information from third parties, Kevin was able to address the Magistrates at length about the reasons behind the recent offending. He could share personal mitigation and the good progress that his Client was making with Probation. In conclusion he said it would be unjust to send her to prison and invited the Court to impose a sentence that enabled her to keep her freedom.
After listening to the mitigation the Magistrates agreed with Kevin and agreed it would be unjust. The Court chose to impose a simple financial penalty and disqualify the Defendant from driving for 18 months. However, as a direct result of Kevin’s mitigation, the Court also offered Kevin’s client the opportunity to undertake an additional driving awareness course to reduce her ban by 25%.
To mark the breach of Suspended Sentence order the Magistrates were prepared to extend the operational period of the order by 6 months.
Client Feedback
Kevin’s client was delighted with the outcome and relieved to not face a custodial sentence. She took the time to complete our client care questionnaire and told us ‘Mr Kevin Tomlinson was great’. She was very satisfied with the service that she had received and would be certain to recommend him to others in a similar position.
Funding
Our client had the benefit of legal aid. This means that she was able to instruct Kevin as her criminal defence solicitor for free.
Contact Kevin Tomlinson – Criminal Defence Solicitor
If you face police investigation or court proceedings then you will need an experienced solicitor on your side. Kevin can be contacted on 01246 283000 or by email here.
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Chesterfield crime solicitor Ben Strelley
Chesterfield crime solicitor Ben Strelley recently persuaded a District Judge that what he thought he had seen on CCTV was not correct and in doing so secured a non-custodial sentence for his client.
Ben was instructed to represent a mother and son who had travelled to Chesterfield to watch a football match. Both had been refused entry to the match so attended a local pub. Inside the pub a large fight erupted following damage being caused. Both of Ben’s clients were accused of using and threatening unlawful violence.
Ben’s clients had been represented by the us at the police station. As a result Ben knew that the incident was captured on CCTV. The Prosecution had failed to provide this to us in advance of the first hearing. Instead the disc was handed to Ben at the first hearing.
Adjournment in Interests of Justice
In order to be able to give full and proper consideration to the CCTV evidence Ben argued that his clients ought to be given the benefit of an adjournment. The allegations they faced included a suggestion that there had been kicking to victims of the violence whilst they were on the ground.
Chesterfield Magistrates’ Court
Courts are encouraged to refuse adjournments wherever possible, but Ben’s articulate application setting out how it would be in the interest of justice to adjourn ensured that the Court agreed.
Before the second hearing Ben viewed the CCTV at length before an appointment with his clients. The mother accepted the allegation in full but her son denied that he had kicked the victim. Ben, having seen the CCTV, agreed that it did not show kicking by him. As a result both clients returned to Court at the second hearing willing to enter guilty pleas on the basis of what was shown on the CCTV.
The Judge was Wrong
At Court the Judge, who viewed the CCTV, made it clear that he believed that the CCTV showed the son kicking. Whether he had or not was likely to be very important as if he had it was likely that he would receive a prison sentence.
Ben suggested to the District Judge that he was mistaken. His thorough preparation meant that he approached this issue from a position of strength as he knew he was right.
Ben went on to invite the Judge to watch the footage again so that he could have the Judge focus solely on his client. The Judge agreed and the footage was watched in Court. At the conclusion the Judge agreed with Ben. There was no kicking and he would be sentenced accordingly.
It is perhaps an indication of the strength of the advocate that Ben was prepared to argue that this Judge was simply wrong on the evidence. Ben did not hide from this potentially difficult situation. His client benefited in the end.
No Football Banning Order
The case proceeded and the Prosecution then asked the Court to consider Football Banning Orders for both involved. The Prosecution claimed that the violence was ‘football related’ and as such wished to prevent Ben’s clients from attending football matches for years to come. Ben, again was fully prepared for this.
Armed with recent case law, Ben argued that the matter was not ‘football violence’. The Judge by this time knew that Ben had a thorough grasp of the case. As he result he decided did not merit an order. As such no Football Banning Orders were imposed and the Ben’s clients were free to continue to attend football matches.
If you are under investigation by the police or face court proceedings and wish to contact Chesterfield crime solicitor Ben Strelley then please telephone our Chesterfield office on 01246 283000 or email him here.
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Chesterfield Crime Solicitor Serena Simpson has received confirmation that she has passed both her written portfolio and ‘live’ assessment to secure her duty solicitor Magistrates’ Court Qualification. She has previously passed her Police Station Accreditation.
Chesterfield Duty Solicitor Serena Simpson
The assessments cover all types of criminal law work. The portfolio was used to demonstrate the level and range of Serena’s experience of conducting cases in the Magistrates’ Court, and included detailed summaries demonstrating Serena’s competence.
The live assessment includes a simulated client interview and appearance in a Magistrates’ Court. In the latter, Serena was expected to make representations and submissions appropriate to the particular cases.
In passing the portfolio and test Serena has demonstrated that she has a high level of knowledge, skills, experience and practice in the area of criminal litigation. Its shows her detailed knowledge of matters such as:
the definition of offences
appropriate defences
role of parents or appropriate adults
commencement of criminal proceedings
bail
plea before venue, allocation and sending of cases
sentencing.
This means that she will be able to represent clients who have not requested a particular solicitor but who nevertheless require legal representation. In that case, they are appointed the duty solicitor at the police station, or are represented by the solicitor at court.
Chesterfield Duty Solicitor Rota
Duty Solicitor Accreditation
Serena will be able to take her place on the Chesterfield police station and court duty rota from 1 July along with four of her colleagues. If you wish to instruct Serena or VHS Fletchers the way to make sure that you are able to instruct her is to ask for us when you are arrested, rather than for the duty solicitor.
Contact a Chesterfield Crime Solicitor
Serena can be contacted by telephone on 01246 283000. We will be able to provide advice on procedure, evidence and funding, before representing you at the police station and court.
Alternatively you can use the contact form below.
Contact
All posts by Andrew Wesley/h3>
Nottingham crime solicitor Lauren Fisher recently dealt with an unusual case of before Nottingham Magistrates’ Court. Her client was charged with an offence of public nuisance.
Allegation of Public Nuisance
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court
Lauren’s client was an elderly gentleman who was said to have been visiting shops with his trousers open, thus exposing himself. The police and prosecution had apparently been in no hurry to bring the matter to court. The offence dated back to the summer of 2015, and proceedings were not commenced by summons until the following June.
Our client presented as vulnerable. He suffered from both mental illness and learning disabilities. Representations were made on several occasions that it was not in the public interest for the prosecution to continue, but they fell on deaf ears.
This failure to heed these representations was all the more unfortunate when Lauren prepared the case for trial following service of all of the evidence. Detailed legal research led to a concern that the evidence even taken at its highest could not prove the case.
Lauren’s client was said to have gone into two shops, one after the other. The Crown relied on this to show it was not an “accident”. He was said to have been told to ‘put it away’ in one shop before going into the second shop still exposed.
Delay Causes Prosecution Problems
It was at this stage, however, that the delay created by the police in investigating the matter created problems for the prosecution. The witness in the first show was unable to give the date the incident occurred, or even the day of the week. At most she could say that it had happened in August.
The police had failed to hold any form of identification procedure, so witnesses were not given the opportunity to say whether Lauren’s client was the man seen with his trousers undone.
The lack of evidence to show that our client had been warned of his conduct immediately before a visit to a second shop significantly undermined the a suggestion that his behaviour was deliberate. The fact that there were only two shop workers in the second shop was arguably insufficient to show a ‘public’ nuisance.
Renewed Representations
Unfortunately the health of Lauren’s client deteriorated over the course of the proceedings. This led to the need for a psychiatric report to be obtained. As an alternative to that considerable expense to the public purse, Lauren renewed the representations to the prosecution, combining factors relating to the health of her client with the likelihood of a successful outcome due to lack of evidence. These representations were supplemented by service of a skeleton argument.
Successful Legal Argument
The matter was listed for a case management hearing and the legal argument was dealt with during that hearing as a preliminary point. The District Judge ruled that the prosecution would be unable to establish that it was Lauren’s client in the first shop on the same day, and that the behaviour gave established, as a matter of law, a public nuisance.
The prosecution offered no evidence and the charge against Lauren’s client was dismissed.
Contact Lauren Fisher
Cases alleging public nuisance may be rare, but Nottingham criminal solicitor advocate Lauren Fisher will show the same level of care whatever the allegation that you face.
If you are due to be interviewed by the police or face court proceedings then please telephone Lauren on 0115 9599550 or email her here.
The deadline for submission of an indication of a wish to appeal is 6 March 2017. The deadline for submission of the paperwork is 20 March. Any further information can be submitted up to 5 working days before the appeal is to be heard.
We will post information about how to approach Part B of the process soon, as well as some information to prepare 2017 parents for what might happen next.
