Parents face fines after school holiday ruling
PARENTS who took advantage of a court judgment to book family holidays during term time now face fines and a possible criminal conviction after a landmark legal ruling.
The Supreme Court said yesterday that parents could not remove children from school to take advantage of cheaper fares and hotels outside the peak holiday season.
The judgment overturned earlier court victories in favour of Jon Platt, a businessman from the Isle of Wight, who had refused to pay a £120 fine for taking his six-year-old daughter to Disney World in Florida in 2015.
Thousands of parents are thought to have booked cheaper holidays during term time following Mr Platt’s earlier victories. One travel agency had claimed an 88 per cent rise in family holiday bookings during term time in May 2016 after the High Court initially ruled in favour of Mr Platt. Almost 20,000 parents were prosecuted in 2015 for taking children out of school without authorisation.
It is not clear how many parents – although it is likely to be many thousands – will have seized upon Mr Platt’s earlier court victories to follow suit.
One parent last night claimed on Facebook she had been told by a travel agent last year to proceed with a term-
time booking because councils “no longer fine for it”. The ruling by the Supreme Court means those parents who booked unauthorised holidays from last May onwards can now be fined and prosecuted. A Department for Education spokesman said no child should be taken out of school without good reason and added: “As before, headteachers have the ability to decide when exceptional circumstances allow for a child to be absent but today’s ruling removes the uncertainty for schools and local authorities that was created by the previous judgment.”
Isle of Wight council, which had taken the case to the Supreme Court, said the ruling provided “much-needed clarity” and it would now press ahead with its existing “code of conduct”.
The judges ruled that Mr Platt should have paid a £120 fine for his daughter’s unauthorised absence.
Lady Justice Hale, the Supreme Court’s deputy president, said Mr Platt had shown a “blatant disregard of school rules” and that his approach had been a “slap in the face” to “obedient” parents who abide by the law.
After the ruling, Mr Platt – who faces legal costs of more than £10,000 and could be fined up to £1,000 when the case is re-examined later this year – apologised to his wife for his stubbornness, adding that he was “not at all surprised” by the verdict. But he insisted the decision was “outrageous”.