The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a person who reaches the age of 19 is no longer a child for the purposes of Part IV of the Education Act 1996 and so statements lapse automatically when a child reaches the age of 19: Essex CC v Williams [2011] EWCA Civ 1315.
Readers who have been following the various decisions on this topic will recall that the definition of a child for this purpose “includes any person who has not attained the age of 19 and is a registered pupil at a school” (section 312, Education Act 1996). There are two limbs to this definition.
The Court of Appeal considered the scope of the definition in R (Hill) v Bedfordshire CC [2008] EWCA Civ 66 and held that it is not exhaustive. It considered the second limb and found that a person could still be a child if they ceased to be registered at a school but there was every reason for a continuing belief that they may need, and be given, special educational provision later.
The Upper Tribunal and High Court then each considered the first limb of the definition, namely that a child includes any person who has not attained the age of 19. In AW v Essex CC [2010] UKUT 74 (AAC), the First Tier Tribunal had struck out an appeal because the ‘child’ in question was 19; the Upper Tribunal overturned this decision, finding that there was scope for argument about whether they remained a child when they attained 19. In contrast, in R (B) v Islington LBC [2010] EWHC 2539 (Admin) Mr Justice Cranston decided that a statement lapses when a child reaches the age of 19; the first limb of the definition is not so flexible that it could include a person who has attained the age of 19.
The Upper Tribunal’s decision in AW was appealed to the Court of Appeal: Essex CC v Williams [2011] EWCA Civ 1315. Mrs Justice Baron (with whom LJ Moses and LJ Maurice Kay agreed) found that:
- Part IV of the Education Act 1996 contains a very specific (albeit not exhaustive) definition of “child”. To seek to override that by the application of other sections within the Act would fly in the face of what Parliament specified and clearly intended. Education courses can be ill-defined in length, but Parliament placed a specific upper age limit.
- There is specific provision for what is to happen when a child ceases to be under 19 years and moves from secondary education to Further Education. The Guidance provides a discretionary upper limit which extends the possible provision to the end of the academic year but this does not affect the construction of the statute.
- It follows that the local authority was not bound to maintain the Statement of SEN because it ceased to be responsible for the ‘child’ when she reached the age of 19. The local authority was not required to make a formal decision which was reviewable.