B, a pupil aged 12, suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome. Following a day of violent incidents against teachers and other students at school, B was permanently excluded. The exclusion was upheld by the school governors and the matter was reviewed by the Statutory Appeal Panel.

The head teacher of the scB, a pupil aged 12, suffered from Asperger’s Syndrome. Following a day of violent incidents against teachers and other students at school, B was permanently excluded. The exclusion was upheld by the school governors and the matter was reviewed by the Statutory Appeal Panel. hool produced a report for the purposes of the Appeal Panel which was read out at the inquiry. The report contained the following words: "On one occasion we know for sure that the police had to arrest B at his father’s house for violent and dangerous behaviour." When questioned about the source of the information, the head teacher replied "Two very reliable parents had seen him being led away in handcuffs". B’s parents knew the statement was untrue and asked the head teacher to produce evidence in support of the allegations or to withdraw them. The head teacher did not. So B (through his mother) brought a libel claim against the head teacher.

At trial, the judge found that B’s claim in libel would be defeated by a defence of justification. The judge however allowed B to amend his claim to include a claim for a breach of his human rights, specifically, his right to private life and resulting damage to his reputation. The head teacher then appealed against the permission to amend the claim. The Court of Appeal held B’s claim would be defeated nonetheless as the allegations would not damage B’s reputation further. Moreover, the information was not private.

Private information

The Appeal Judge questioned whether B could fairly and reasonably expect his arrest outside his father’s home for violent behaviour to be information which should not be made public to the Statutory Appeal Panel considering B’s behaviour. He found the answer must be no. They were matters in the public domain; the arrest and removal took place outside (emphasis added) his father’s home so it was not a private matter, nor was it confidential. The Court also said the nature of the information (i.e. whether it is public or private) did not change merely because the head teacher refused to reveal his sources.

Damage to reputation

There were two issues to be determined: B’s reputation before the allegations, and whether that reputation was diminished by the head teacher’s words. The Court found that B’s reputation was that of a "…disturbed child, at times beyond control and violent". His reputation was already so damaged that the head teacher’s allegations did not make a difference. The judge added that damage that flows from disclosure of an assault in private, where there is abundant evidence of assaults in public, is minimal.

Conclusion

There is always a need to be careful about what is said and written about others, particularly when relaying matters which were not witnessed first hand. In addition, the case highlights the difficult task of distinguishing information and situations which are private against those that are public.

The judge also commented on the decision taken by the head teacher (and the school’s insurers) not to apologise at an earlier stage, even when they realised the comments were untrue, calling it a "serious misjudgement".

Stephanie Walls can be contacted by telephone on 01865 262 636 or by email