The cost of too many days off

‘It’s not fair to be prosecuted for giving my son the holiday he deserves’ The message is clear – fail to send your children to school and you’ll end up in the dock. Reporter Alex Claridge spent a day in truancy court to find out why pupils are not making

After almost 20 years covering east Kent’s courts, Monday was a first for me. In my time I’ve seen a defendant strike a man with a crutch, others attempt to climb from the dock and escape and some take covert sips from a bottle of vodka.

But I had never seen a court clerk forced to ring up a call centre – with the speaker phone on – and try to navigate the infuriating swamp of telephone options that come with ringing most organisations these days.

That is, until this week and schools day at Canterbury Magistrates’ Court – the day when parents are prosecuted for not ensuring their children get to class.

And the need to ring an interpreting service is a moment of farce in a rather strange morning.

It doesn’t start well. Just one of the three-strong magistrates’ bench turns up at the Broad Street building for a 10am start, resulting in some frenetic phone calls and proceedings not getting underway until a replacement arrives at 11.10am.

But the pace does not pick up. The first defendant’s case cannot be heard because she knows the replacement magistrate – very well, in fact. They’re both members of the Thanet Labour Party.

The case cannot proceed and is adjourned until the end of the month. No one is particularly happy – especially the defendant, who tells the court she planned to plead guilty, but “with extreme mitigating and extenuating circumstances” relating to her daughter’s mental health.

She is followed by Tanya Whittaker-williams, 32, a softly spoken Northern Irish lady from Folkestone.

Clare Blundell, the prosecutor for the education authority, tells the court the single mother’s 14-year-old son had an attendance record of 83% between May and September of last year.

Whittaker-williams says she had difficulty obtaining doctors’ notes for days when her son was ill, but also admits she took him on a family holiday. “I’m basically being taken to court because my son was out of school for the last week of the year,” WhittakerWilliams said.

“The fact is that the airlines and holiday resorts more than double their prices during the school holidays. I don’t think it’s fair to be prosecuted for giving my son the holiday he deserves.”

Whittaker-williams adds that her son is regarded as a high-achieving pupil and Mrs Blundell says his attendance rate has risen to 95%.

Magistrates give her a sixmonth conditional discharge with £50 costs.

Failing to ensure that a child attends school regularly is an offence under section 444 of the Education Act 1996.

Whittaker-williams admits the charge, as does Monika Rakasova, a 48-year-old Slovak who lives in Cliftonville.

Her 15-year-old daughter had a 73% attendance record at Hartsdown Academy in Margate between June and late September of last year.

Mrs Blundell says there were 27 unauthorised absences.

Rakasova has virtually no English and speaks through an interpreter called by court clerk Vicky Hayton.

When she finally gets through to the interpreting firm, the court is treated to myriad options, requests for ID numbers and passcodes, hold music consisting of 1970s funk guitar before a human being comes onto the line and transfers the court to a Slovak translator.

Rakasova doesn’t really explain why her 14-year-old daughter’s attendance was poor, except to say she had been sick. On other days, Rakasova says her daughter had gone with her to act as translator at doctor’s surgeries.

Magistrates notice the girl is sitting in the public gallery and ask her why she isn’t at school. “Um, because it’s the Easter holiday,” comes the reply.

Rakasova senior leaves the court with a £150 fine, £70 costs and a £20 surcharge. Her husband Vojech, who is too ill to attend court, will be prosecuted later as both parents are responsible for a child’s failure to attend school.

The rest of the court session is taken up with people who have either ignored the action being taken against them and failed to turn up or have pleaded guilty by post to avoid coming to court.

Aimee Brazil, of Herne Bay, admits her 14-year-old son only had a 76% attendance record last year. It has since risen to 91%, but Brazil still incurs fines and costs of £180.

Samantha Beazley and Martin Woodall, the parents of an eight-year-old at a primary school in Folkestone, make no response to the charge that their child’s attendance was an unsatisfactory 79%.

Convicted in their absence, each parent is fined £220 with £70 costs.

What is common to all the parents summonsed to court is that Kent County Council offers you first the chance to pay a £120 penalty notice, which is halved if paid within three weeks. Those that fail to pay are the ones who end up in court.

So the lesson of the day appears to be if you get the penalty notice then pay it. Better still, get your kids to school.