[align=left]
GA, R (on the application of) v Islington London Borough Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, September 08, 2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 390

1

CO 2559/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL

08 September 2000

B e f o r e

Mr JACK BEATSON Q.C.
Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge


THE QUEEN

v

ISLINGTON LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
EX PARTE G.A.

- - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - -
MR P BOWEN (instructed by John Ford Morrison, London N1 8LN) appeared on behalf of the Appellant

MR T KERR (instructed by Islington Council, London N1 2UD) appeared on behalf of the Respondent

- - - - - - - - - -

Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©



Mr JACK BEATSON Q.C.


The Applicant is a nine year old boy with special educational needs. He has severe learning difficulties with autistic features secondary to brain damage acquired through an immunodeficiency state. Since September 1997 he has been a weekly border at Doucecroft School near Colchester, an independent school run by the Es*** Autistic Society. It takes approximately one and a half hours to drive the 75 miles from the parents home to the school. The present proceedings arise out of a decision of the Respondent local education authority dated 25 May 2000 refusing to finance the transport of the applicant to and from Doucecroft School. Transport has until now been provided by the applicant's mother or by a family friend. The Applicant's case is that the local education authority has unlawfully refused to meet the transport costs to and from school which sections 324(5)(a)(ii), 509, and 19 of the Education Act 1996 empower it to meet. Originally the claim was that the authority was under an obligation to meet all transport costs, but, in opening the case on behalf of the Applicant, Mr Bowen stated that what was being challenged was the decision not to provide the Applicant with any free transport and that what was sought was sufficient free transport. Suitable amendments were made to the form 96A.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on 27 July by Harrison J who ordered expedition and made an order under section 39 of the Children & Young Persons Act 1933 to preserve the applicant's anonymity. I will refer to him as G.A., and any report must suitably disguise his identity.
G.A's parents first had contact with the local education authority in 1995. In March 1996 the authority informed them that it was proposing to carry out a statutory assessment of G.A.'s special educational needs and, after making the assessment, that they would make a statement of his needs. There were discussions between Mr Gurney, the authorit...
[/align]