R v Education Secretary, Ex parte Begbie [2000] 1 WLR 1115

Judicial review ensures that public authorities act fairly and within their legal powers.

• When assessing cases of legitimate expectation, the court determines individuals reasonably anticipated continued benefits based on previous promises or conduct by the authority

The Schools Assisted Places Scheme provided financial aid to students in private schools.

• Even if an opposition party abolished the scheme, their promise to fund existing recipients created an obligation to honor that commitment.

• For applicants receiving primary education at a school extending to age 18, determining if the Secretary of State must continue funding involves assessing whether their legitimate expectation, based on previous promises, is being met.

• The court must evaluate if the Secretary of State is required to continue funding beyond the primary stage based on the legitimate expectations created by the previous scheme’s promises.

• Discontinuing funding under the new scheme raises questions about whether it infringes on the right to education, as protected by national laws and international human rights standards.

• The court must assess if the withdrawal is fair and consistent with these protections.

In February 1997, when Heather Charis Begbie (“Applicant”) was nine years old, she was offered a place at an independent school under a state-funded assisted places scheme, which provided education up to the age of 18.

• Although the main opposition party had resolved to abolish the scheme, it had given an undertaking that funding would continue for children already holding places. 

• After the opposition party won the general election in May 1997, the Education (Schools) Act 1997 was enacted to abolish the scheme.

• Section 2 of the Act stipulated that funding for existing assisted pupils would continue only until the end of the primary stage, unless the Secretary of State decided otherwise in individual cases. 

• The Secretary of State chose not to exercise his discretion to extend funding beyond age 11 for the applicant.

Represented by her mother and next friend, the applicant sought a judicial review to quash the Secretary of State’s decision.

• She argued that the undertaking had created a legitimate expectation for continued funding until the end of her education at the school and that the decision infringed her right to education under Article 2 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The judge, however, dismissed the application.

Dismissing the appeal, the court held that it would not have enforced a legitimate expectation if it required a public authority to act contrary to the terms of a statute. 

The court found that any requirement for the Secretary of State to implement Section 2(2)(6) of the Education (Schools) Act 1997 in favor of all children in the Applicant's position would have contravened the statute, which conferred discretion on the Secretary of State to make decisions based on the facts of individual cases. 

The court ruled that pre-election statements made by a party in opposition did not have legal effect and did not fall within the scope of judicial review, as they did not originate from a public authority.

• Furthermore, the court determined that the removal of funding for a specific school did not breach Article 2 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, provided that alternative education was available at public expense. 

The court concluded that there were no grounds to quash the Secretary of State's decision to discontinue the Applicant's funding.

Judicial review is important in ensuring that public authorities act fairly and within their legal limits.

• In cases involving legitimate expectation, the court evaluates whether individuals have a reasonable anticipation of continued benefits based on previous assurances or conduct by the authority.

• This principle is vital in assessing whether promises made by public bodies should be upheld, especially when those promises create a legitimate expectation for ongoing support or services

The Schools Assisted Places Scheme, which offered financial aid to students attending private schools, is a pertinent example of how legitimate expectations can arise.

• Despite the scheme's eventual abolition by an opposition party, the commitment to fund existing recipients created a binding obligation to honor that promise.

• This was particularly significant for students like Heather Charis Begbie, who was offered a place at a school providing education up to the age of 18.

The court addressed concerns about the right to education, concluding that the removal of funding did not violate Article 2 of the First Protocol, provided that alternative education was available at public expense.

• This decision underscored the court's role in balancing statutory provisions with promises made by public authorities and ensuring that any changes to funding or services comply with legal and human rights standards.

In summary, the court's judgment highlighted the limits of judicial review in enforcing pre-election promises and the necessity of aligning public authority actions with statutory requirements.