In the Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom case presented to the ECHR back in September of 1981, mothers of the Campbell and Cosans family fought for their philosophical beliefs on how their children should and should not be disciplined. The case brought up very important stances on the right of a teacher enforce corporal punishment, and the right of a student being denied education because he or she did not want to receive corporal punishment.
The claims began from two different schools in Scotland. The Campbell family had their young son enrolled in the St Mathews Roman Catholic Primary School located in Bishopbriggs. The school policy was that corporal punishment would be allowed and used as a adequate disciplinary action if so needed. …show more content…
Jeffrey attended Beath Senior High School in Cowdenbeath, where one day he was caught using an illegal shortcut through a graveyard to go home. He was later sent to the assistant head masters office for punishment. This is where Jeffrey refused to receive the corporal punishment as advised by her father. This caused Jeffrey to be suspended from the school. The Cosans parents were later notified that the son would not be disciplined for the action due to the fact that his prolonged absence from school was enough punishment. But that he would for the remainder of his schooling follow the rules and receive the punishment where needed. The parents countered by saying that they did not want the son to ever have to receive discipline in any form of corporal punishment. The parents were then told that Jeffrey’s suspension would remain unless they changed their …show more content…
the United Kingdom states “the use of corporal punishment is controlled by the common law, particularly the law of assault”. Meaning that it could be considered assault if not used properly. Which is why the booklet “Elimination of Corporal Punishment in Schools: Statement of Principles and Code of Practice” was made and distributed to all the educators in Scotland. The Booklet contains codes like “(vi) Where used, corporal punishment should be used only as a last resort, and should be directed to punishment of the wrong-doer and to securing the conditions necessary for order in the school and for work in the classroom.” (Campbell) and “(viii) Corporal punishment should be given by striking the palm of the pupil 's hand with a strap and by no other means whatever." (Campbell). Also it was stated by the Successive education act that “to make regulations prescribing the standards and general requirements to which every education authority shall conform"(Campbell). This meant that it was against the law without further legislation to take away a teacher right to use corporal punishment. Lastly as stated in the case file “Under regulation 4 of The Schools General (Scotland) Regulations 1975, an education authority may exclude a pupil from school if "the parent of the pupil refuses or fails to comply, or to allow the pupil to comply, with the rules, regulation or
The claims began from two different schools in Scotland. The Campbell family had their young son enrolled in the St Mathews Roman Catholic Primary School located in Bishopbriggs. The school policy was that corporal punishment would be allowed and used as a adequate disciplinary action if so needed. …show more content…
Jeffrey attended Beath Senior High School in Cowdenbeath, where one day he was caught using an illegal shortcut through a graveyard to go home. He was later sent to the assistant head masters office for punishment. This is where Jeffrey refused to receive the corporal punishment as advised by her father. This caused Jeffrey to be suspended from the school. The Cosans parents were later notified that the son would not be disciplined for the action due to the fact that his prolonged absence from school was enough punishment. But that he would for the remainder of his schooling follow the rules and receive the punishment where needed. The parents countered by saying that they did not want the son to ever have to receive discipline in any form of corporal punishment. The parents were then told that Jeffrey’s suspension would remain unless they changed their …show more content…
the United Kingdom states “the use of corporal punishment is controlled by the common law, particularly the law of assault”. Meaning that it could be considered assault if not used properly. Which is why the booklet “Elimination of Corporal Punishment in Schools: Statement of Principles and Code of Practice” was made and distributed to all the educators in Scotland. The Booklet contains codes like “(vi) Where used, corporal punishment should be used only as a last resort, and should be directed to punishment of the wrong-doer and to securing the conditions necessary for order in the school and for work in the classroom.” (Campbell) and “(viii) Corporal punishment should be given by striking the palm of the pupil 's hand with a strap and by no other means whatever." (Campbell). Also it was stated by the Successive education act that “to make regulations prescribing the standards and general requirements to which every education authority shall conform"(Campbell). This meant that it was against the law without further legislation to take away a teacher right to use corporal punishment. Lastly as stated in the case file “Under regulation 4 of The Schools General (Scotland) Regulations 1975, an education authority may exclude a pupil from school if "the parent of the pupil refuses or fails to comply, or to allow the pupil to comply, with the rules, regulation or