Battison v Melloy: An Aberration in the Judicial Review of School Discipline Decisions

Abstract

This paper analyses the decision of Battison v Melloy. Lucan Battison was suspended from St John’s College after he failed to comply with a request from principal to cut his hair in accordance with school rules. Lucan sought to have this decision judicially reviewed.

Justice Collins made two significant rulings: first, the suspension was quashed as it did not comply with s 14(1)(a) of the Education Act 1989; and secondly, the school’s hair rule was ultra vires because it breached the common law requirement of certainty, and was therefore contrary to s 72 of the Education Act.

This paper argues that while the judge’s reasoning on the hair rule was underdeveloped, the ruling has net benefits with regards to vague school uniform rules. The judge’s reasoning on the school discipline issue was more troubling. It is argued that Collins J’s expansive, rights-based approach is contrary to authority. Stronger arguments for the judge’s conclusion are suggested.

This paper closes by addressing the perception that courts are now more willing to review school discipline decisions on their merits. After comparing the approach in Battison to other recent decisions, it is suggested that this perception is not well founded.