Asian boy '˜does not have to leave' unnamed Belfast grammar school
Mr Justice Colton had identified procedural unfairness in an Exceptional Circumstances Body (ECB) decision requiring a place be found for the 12-year-old whose home came under racist attack.
But he rejected the school’s arguments that continuing his education there would be harmful to his well-being and welfare.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe judge held it would not be in the boy’s best interests to direct he must leave a network of friends after settling in for two months.
“Any decision by this court to require him to be moved from School X where he professes to be happy is bound to be very distressing for him,” he said.
“The removal of (the boy) from the school by a court order would in my view be a wholly undesirable outcome.”
Anonymity orders imposed in the case prevent any of the parties being identified.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe boy, whose family have been granted political asylum in the UK, failed to gain the required score when he sat the AQE transfer test last year.
Despite scoring well below the minimum entry level, he was given a place based on circumstances linked to suspected hate crime against his family after they arrived in Northern Ireland.
Their home was attacked, a car was burnt and a threatening racist letter left at the door of the property.
The boy, referred to only as AA, developed psychological symptoms.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHe was in constant fear and could not be left alone, the court heard.
His parents applied to the ECB in a bid to get him into the grammar school, citing the psychiatric trauma.
The board considered the case twice over the summer and issued the same direction both times that he should be admitted to the school.
It concluded that it was essential for him to retain a close network of close friends also being educated there.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe school consented to him entering first year in August “under protest” and without prejudice to its legal challenge to the ECB.
Counsel for the school argued that it was not in AA’s best interests to remain there due to his low academic performance.
Concerns were raised about the child’s own welfare if he continues to fall behind classmates.
The school’s lawyers argued that it knew nothing about the first ECB hearing in July.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdIt was also claimed the principal was wrongly “kept in the dark” about the so-called network of friends during the second tribunal in August.
Mr Justice Colton backed submissions that there had been a procedural unfairness in the ECB decision making process.
But making a final determination on the outcome today, he resisted the school’s submissions that the decision should be quashed or reconsidered by a different ECB panel.
The judge pointed to a statement from AA indicating he was enjoying his education with a network of friends.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe boy said: “I would feel angry and sad if I had to leave the school now.”
He also set out concerns at moving to another school where he wouldn’t know anyone.
“They wouldn’t know my story. I think it would make it more difficult for me to deal with my problems,” he added.
Based on the boy’s welfare, Mr Justice Colton confirmed he was confining relief to his declaration on procedural unfairness.
“I have therefore come to the conclusion that it would not be in AA’s interest to order that he be removed from School X.”