What happened
A ten-year-old at an English primary academy had autism, ADHD, significant social, emotional and mental health needs and an education, health and care plan.
In early July 2025 he brought in a replica butterfly knife, unsharpened with a rounded end. His mother thought it was plastic, the school that it was metal; nobody settled the question.
At break, he passed the open replica to another child, who used it against a third. Staff intervened at once; no significant injury was recorded.
He was suspended for five days, then permanently excluded on 10 July 2025. The Principal’s letter cited a “one-off serious breach” of the behaviour policy and asserted that this meant allowing him back “would seriously harm the education or welfare” of him or others. Nothing explained why exclusion, not something less.
The outcome
The governors’ disciplinary panel heard the case on 10 September 2025 and refused to reinstate, judging the exclusion “proportionate, rational, reasonable and fair” without showing why.
Its deliberation note described a “potential stabbing” and a “bladed article”, and recorded that CCTV had not been shown to the whole panel because other children were in it. No proper minutes were taken. An independent review panel criticised the missing minutes but upheld the exclusion two to one.
On 5 August 2026, in R (HVF) v Lift Schools [2026] EWHC 2088 (Admin), Alan Bates KC, sitting as a High Court judge, quashed the exclusion.
What went wrong
The letter asserted the test rather than applying it: the judge called the reasoning “essentially just asserted conclusions”.
Nobody established what the object was: the panel never decided metal or plastic, and never asked whether the pupil thought it could injure anyone. The risk assessment had no floor.
His being “self-regulated” was used to make his autism and ADHD irrelevant, and him “accountable”. Calm does not make a disability irrelevant, the judge held; culpability matters less than risk when the purpose is protection.
Alternatives were never tested. Asked about a longer suspension, the panel chair told the review panel: “We didn’t look at this when considering, within the 5 days.”
What it teaches
Permanent exclusion is protection, not punishment, and a last resort: available only where nothing else will adequately protect against likely serious harm.
The panel must decide for itself, not review the head’s decision. Its reasons must show the harm feared, how likely it was, the harm excluding the child would do to him, and why suspension or off-site direction would not suffice.
Questions for the room
- Your last refusal to reinstate: where does it give the harm feared, its likelihood, the harm of excluding, and why suspension would not do?
- Who decides what the object was, and whether the child understood it? Where is that written?
- If a panel calls a child calm and therefore accountable, what has it stopped considering?
Evidence and limits
Confidence: confirmed. The judgment was read in full on Find Case Law on 7 November 2026, with notes from IPSEA, Garden Court Chambers, Duncan Lewis and 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square. The pupil is identified only by the initials of the anonymity order, the judgment’s pseudonym is not repeated, and the academy is not named because that would identify him.
The judge could not decide whether the replica was metal or plastic. Quashing is not a finding that the return was safe, only that it was not lawfully reasoned; by the hearing the pupil had moved school and was doing well.
Our training on physical intervention and exclusion decisions works through proportionality with the people who write these letters.
Sources
- The National Archives (Find Case Law), 5 August 2026 · https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2026/2088
- IPSEA, undated · https://www.ipsea.org.uk/r-hvf-v-lift-schools-2026-ewhc-2088-admin
- Garden Court Chambers, undated · https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/high-court-quashes-disabled-10-year-old-childs-permanent-exclusion-from-school/
- Duncan Lewis Solicitors, 5 August 2026 · https://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/news/High_Court_quashes_permanent_exclusion_of_disabled_child_in_landmark_SEND_judgment_(5_August_2026).html
- 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square, undated · https://www.4-5.co.uk/assets/r(hvf)-(004).pdf
Reviewed 7 November 2026.