1. How did the Court reach its decision in the case?
The judgement was delivered by Lord Hale who commenced by stating the main issue regarding the meaning of “regularly” with respect to a child’s attendance at school and brought up the instance in which the word was brought up in the Education Act 1996. She then outlines the facts of the case – Mr. Platt had brought his daughter (Mary) out on holiday despite his request to remove Mary from school during term time being denied. Proceedings were brought up against the respondent in the Isle of Wight Magistrate’s Court after he had failed to pay the penalty notice. It was noted that Mary’s attendance was at 90.3% after the holiday with Mr. Platt and that satisfactory attendance was supplied to …show more content…
In determining the meaning, she set out three possible suggestions – “at regular intervals”; “sufficiently frequently”; and “in accordance with the rules”. She provided her reasoning for inconsistencies in the first two possible suggestions with Parliament’s intentions before addressing the concerns regarding the outcome of the imposition of criminal liability in the third. In addressing the concerns, Lord Hale provided three answers. Firstly, policies have provided for more realistic prosecutions to combat criminal liability for insignificant breaches. In the case of school attendance, such policies provide for fixed penalty notices, which will trigger prosecution if not paid off. Next, the basis of the 1944 law found no objection to such concerns since it helps drive the importance of school attendance. Lastly, such interpretation ensures that imposition of criminal liability is “construed strictly” so that there is clarity in the position everyone stands. Moreover, Lord Hale observed that such an interpretation of the phrase is congruent with the provisions of section
The judgement was delivered by Lord Hale who commenced by stating the main issue regarding the meaning of “regularly” with respect to a child’s attendance at school and brought up the instance in which the word was brought up in the Education Act 1996. She then outlines the facts of the case – Mr. Platt had brought his daughter (Mary) out on holiday despite his request to remove Mary from school during term time being denied. Proceedings were brought up against the respondent in the Isle of Wight Magistrate’s Court after he had failed to pay the penalty notice. It was noted that Mary’s attendance was at 90.3% after the holiday with Mr. Platt and that satisfactory attendance was supplied to …show more content…
In determining the meaning, she set out three possible suggestions – “at regular intervals”; “sufficiently frequently”; and “in accordance with the rules”. She provided her reasoning for inconsistencies in the first two possible suggestions with Parliament’s intentions before addressing the concerns regarding the outcome of the imposition of criminal liability in the third. In addressing the concerns, Lord Hale provided three answers. Firstly, policies have provided for more realistic prosecutions to combat criminal liability for insignificant breaches. In the case of school attendance, such policies provide for fixed penalty notices, which will trigger prosecution if not paid off. Next, the basis of the 1944 law found no objection to such concerns since it helps drive the importance of school attendance. Lastly, such interpretation ensures that imposition of criminal liability is “construed strictly” so that there is clarity in the position everyone stands. Moreover, Lord Hale observed that such an interpretation of the phrase is congruent with the provisions of section