When is it lawful to isolate a student?

In this case summary, we consider the decision of EBB & Others v Gorse Academies Trust [2025] EWHC 1983 (Admin) and its implication on the use of isolation and suspensions in schools in England.

Facts

This case concerns three judicial review claims brought by three secondary school students – referred to in the judgment as Elise, Luke and Lydia – against John Smeaton Academy (“the School”), a mainstream academy in Leeds operated by The Gorse Academies Trust (“the Trust”). 

The School had previously received an ‘Inadequate’ Ofsted rating in 2019, with the report noting that the School was struggling to manage the disruptive behaviour of a “sizeable minority” of students. However, following action by the Department for Education, the School was brought under control of the Trust in 2021 and, in its 2024 Ofsted inspection report, it was rated as “Good” in all areas, with the assessor noting a “startling transformation”.

These claims allege that disciplinary sanctions issued against them by the School, including the use of isolation booths, were unlawful. Each student had displayed repeated and serious challenging behaviour and had received numerous disciplinary sanctions across their time at the School, including repeatedly being placed in isolation. 

• Elise (15) had a complex a history of self-harm, substance abuse, and difficulties in her home and family life. She had low school attendance was suspended multiple times for various reasons, including for truancy / walking out of lessons, and for a serious assault against another pupil. As Elise approached the point of permanent exclusion, several managed moves were attempted but were ultimately unsuccessful. With suspensions approaching the statutory maximum of 45 total days, Elise was transferred to alternative provision.
• Luke (13) had recognised special educational needs (SEN); he had social, emotional, and mental health needs and was noted to display some typical traits of autism (although no diagnosis appears to have been given). He experienced repeated isolation and suspension, including at least seven school days of isolation (across several instances) in September 2024, though his behaviour and academic performance showed signs of improvement following these sanctions.
• Lydia (14) had persistent behavioural issues and was frequently sanctioned. She spent over 80 days in isolation during one academic year, amounting to nearly half the school year spent out of the classroom. However, like Luke, it was noted that with additional pastoral support put in place, there are signs of improvement in her behaviour, and she reported being happier at school.

The students argued that the repeated use of isolation was contrary to the School’s statutory duty under section 91 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (which requires schools to consider whether repeated isolation of a pupil or pupils constitutes a proportionate and reasonable punishment) and was contrary Department for Education’s non-statutory guidance Behaviour in Schools: advice for headteachers and school staff. 

They also argued that the repeated use of isolation constituted a breach of the students’ Article 8 rights to private life. Whilst the individual instances of isolation (and the more general, theoretical use of isolation as a disciplinary measure) were not themselves challenged as unlawful, the claim asserted that the cumulative effect of repeated sanctions, where the students were withdrawn from classroom teaching for significant proportions of the academic year, was what crossed the boundary of reasonableness and, therefore, lawfulness.

The School and Trust, on the other hand, argued that the disciplinary actions taken were in accordance with the School’s Positive Behaviour Policy and were lawful and reasonable in the circumstances.

Decision

The court dismissed the students’ claims in whole. It held:  

1. The use of isolation in schools as a disciplinary sanction can be lawful under section 91 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, provided it is reasonable and proportionate.  
2. Isolation can be lawfully used repeatedly as a sanction for a single pupil if, for example, the pupil displays persistent misconduct that justifies repeated sanctions: “[r]epetitiveness is not intrinsically or inevitably disproportionate or unreasonable in circumstances of repetitive misconduct”.
3. The bar at which point school discipline would generally be considered to engage Article 8 rights is high, and the Court distinguishes the facts in this case from previous precedent where disciplinary actions in school were found to be abusive or violent in nature. 

In the case of these students, the Court found that the School’s Positive Discipline Policy – which was not itself challenged as part of the claim – was applied consistently, correctly and proportionately, and that its practices (which included pastoral support and reintegration protocols) were compliant with the Department for Education Guidance on Behaviour in Schools. 

The Court acknowledged that the School had a tiered monitoring system and weekly senior leadership reviews, to ensure there was oversight of frequently sanctioned pupils, and found no evidence that it was applying its policy in a mechanical or inflexible way. 

Further, the Court found that the sanctions given to Elise, Luke and Lydia were part of a lawful educational ethos, chosen by parents who opted to send their children to this setting, with no disproportionate interference with the students’ private lives.

What does this mean for schools?

There are several key points that schools (and those advising schools) can take away from this decision. 

Firstly, it confirms that isolation can be used lawfully as a disciplinary action, either as a singular sanction or repeatedly. However, it must be used reasonably and proportionately. Schools still have a responsibility to consider the pupil’s age, SEND and other relevant circumstances when deciding, on a case-by-case basis, whether isolation is an appropriate (and lawful) sanction. 

This is particularly important where a student is being repeatedly sanctioned with isolation. Schools must carefully assess, in context, whether the nature of the student’s misconduct is such that repeated isolation is warranted and within the school’s disciplinary framework and statutory duties.

Schools are expected to apply their disciplinary policies (including the use of isolation) consistently, but this must always be balanced with the school’s duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for pupils who, due to a protected characteristic (such as disability) would be disproportionately negatively impacted if the policy were applied without any flexibility. In this case the Court said:  “even the most ‘rigorous’ of conduct and discipline policies must be applied with an open mind as to whether there might be anything about an individual frequently-sanctioned student’s circumstances which calls for flexibility or a different approach”.

When isolation is used, it is also essential for schools to consider the Department for Education’s guidance documents. Although this guidance is non-statutory, this decision reinforces the expectation on schools that DFE guidance will be followed, unless there is good reason to depart from it. This includes, for example, ensuring that any isolation imposed on a pupil is meaningful, supervised and accompanied by reintegration support.

Finally, this decision highlights the importance of strategic oversight; schools must be able to monitor and review the impact of repeated sanctions, both for individual pupils and at a school-wide level. Systems like tiered tracking and pastoral boards are examples given by the Court in its decision that, although not necessarily required, help ensure that disciplinary measures in school are used lawfully. The importance of accountability, oversight and stringent record keeping cannot be overstated.

We can help

Our public law team can support schools and colleges dealing with disruptive pupils. Please contact me or Ester Salter for more information.

Our newsletters

We publish monthly employment and education newsletters. If you'd like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.