Editorial Comment

Jon Platt is nothing if not determined. He is the father who took his daughter out of school for a family holiday and has fought a two-year legal battle against the fine imposed upon him for doing so. Yesterday, when his case was rejected by the Supreme Court, Mr Platt declared himself “shocked” and vowed to continue his campaign against the restriction. He now faces costs of £10,000.

Under the 1996 Education Act, it is an offence for a parent not to ensure the “regular attendance” of their child in school. However, Mr Platt insisted that even though he took his daughter on holiday without the school’s permission, she was none the less a regular attender, with a rate of more than 90 per cent.

His principal complaint is that the way the law is being interpreted represents an unjustified restraint by the state on the rights of parents. Since 2013 when the Government tightened the law and introduced fixed penalties for unapproved absences, around 100,000 fines have been issued mainly to parents who see it as a price worth paying for a cheaper holiday. Because the wording of the legislation is vague, the issue before the court was to decide what constituted “regular attendance”. Plundering precedents in education law back to the 19th century, the judges agreed that the correct interpretation of “regularly” was being “in accordance with the rules”. In other words, do what the school says.

Some will feel uneasy at the effective supplanting of all parental responsibility for children by the authority of the head teacher while at school. But Lady Hale was surely right in giving the lead judgment to say that a laissez-faire approach to taking time off from school would have an intolerably disruptive impact on the classroom, the teachers and other pupils. Scope remains for a head teacher to grant leave of absence, though only in exceptional circumstances.

The court ruled that since criminal liability is in prospect for parents, it was essential to provide clarity, something that has been absent since two lower courts found in Mr Platt’s favour and caused widespread confusion.

The judges’ solution – that parents must abide by the rules of the school, with minor breaches treated proportionately – is a clear and sensible way forward. It means everyone now knows where they stand – and that includes Mr Platt.