Pupil expelled for 'having knife' takes his school to High Court

A teenager expelled for carrying a knife is fighting a legal battle that could make it much harder for schools to exclude violent pupils.

Lawyers for the London boy, who cannot be named, said today they are going to the High Court to try to force headteachers to give pupils a fairer hearing in exclusion cases.

It comes as the Government fights to deal with the spiralling rate of knife crime among the capital's youth, with Gordon Brown promising to cut the number of police cautions issued for carrying blades and increase the volume of prosecutions in weapons "hot spots".

At present, headteachers can exclude pupils for violent or disruptive behaviour, including carrying weapons on to school premises, if they are satisfied the child is guilty of the offence on the "balance of probabilities".

Lawyers say this leaves pupils open to being excluded for offences which, in a criminal court, would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, thus breaching their human rights.

If the High Court judicial review bid is successful, heads face having to meet far tougher legal standards - including collecting named witness statements in tightly controlled conditions, cross-examining pupils and proving the reliability of witnesses.

Karen May, an associate at John Ford solicitors in Finsbury Park, said the accused boy insisted he had not been carrying a knife.

However, his claim was rejected and he was permanently excluded, in spite of "weaknesses and inconsistencies" in the evidence against him.

Ms May said applying the balance-of-probabilities standard of proof - as happened in civil court hearings - left children open to "devastating consequences" if they were found guilty at school exclusion hearings.

But headteachers rejected this argument and said schools would have to keep disruptive pupils who would harm the education of others if the case went against the education service.

John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "It has always been on the balance of probabilities - and so it should be. The situation in school is quite different fromthe situation outside - schools simply don't have the time and resources to go through the burdensome procedures that are in place in police services before they get a conviction.

"Exclusion isn't the end point of education. It means somebody has to transfer to education somewhere else, whereas conviction can be the end point of your freedom.

"We are in a completely different situation and that should be reflected in the burden of proof."

Ms May said her client was expelled even though only one of several teachers allegedly present said they had seen him with a knife.

The boy was searched by a number of teachers and no knife was found.

Statements taken from pupils showed they did not agree on the description of the knife and all were provided anonymously, with no proof the children in question had been isolated from each other to prevent collusion.

Ms May said the boy, who was 14 at the time of the alleged offence, had found another school.