Pupils who spent up to half a year in “unpleasant and distressing” isolation rooms have lost a High Court battle against their school鈥檚 “rigorous” behaviour policy. High Court judge Justice Collins Rice called the practice 鈥渟tigmatising鈥 and 鈥渄eliberately under-stimulating鈥 鈥 but found the school had not 鈥渃rossed the boundaries of what the law or good practice permits鈥. Despite this, the youngsters are urging government 鈥渢o give serious consideration to the now widespread and repeated use of isolation鈥 as they consider whether to appeal the decision. 鈥楻igorous鈥 behaviour policy A judicial review was lodged with the High Court in Leeds against the 鈥渞epeated isolation and suspensions鈥 of three pupils at John Smeaton Academy when they were aged between 12 and 14. The children鈥檚 legal team said isolation involved sitting 鈥渋n a three-sided booth in a dedicated 鈥榠solation鈥 room in enforced silence for six hours a day without being allowed to interact with or speak to peers, including at breaks and lunch time, and without active or meaningful teaching鈥. All three, who have been given different names to protect their identities, have 鈥渟pecial educational or additional needs affecting their behaviour鈥, a skeleton argument filed by their lawyers claimed. GORSE Academies Trust, which runs John Smeaton, disputes this for one of the pupils. In her judgement, , Collins Rice noted the school 鈥渉as a distinctive mission and ethos to enhance the life opportunities of children particularly from disadvantaged or complicated backgrounds鈥. This is done 鈥渂y developing their self-management, social and academic skills, in combination and in close parallel, through applying a 鈥榬igorous鈥 and highly detailed conduct and discipline policy鈥. Isolation rooms 鈥榓 deterrent鈥 Lawyers for the children said data obtained from GORSE showed 187 pupils 鈥 31 per cent of those at the school 鈥 served an 鈥渋solation sanction鈥 in 2023-24. The claimants also 鈥渆xperienced a high recurrence of sanctions鈥 that 鈥渞esulted in their passing substantial proportions of this academic year, in aggregate, outside ordinary classroom education鈥. They claimed this was 鈥渦nlawful鈥 due to it being 鈥渋nconsistent with the statute law limiting schools鈥 sanctioning powers and with government guidance鈥. They said it was the 鈥渞esult of defective and over-rigid decision-making which failed to factor in the sheer cumulation of time out of class鈥nd contrary to their human rights鈥. One pupil, known as Lydia, spent 83 days in isolation and 14 days suspended in 2023-24, equating to more than half of the academic year. Her lawyers said for most of the time in isolation she 鈥渏ust stare[d] at the walls of the booth鈥 and 鈥淸couldn鈥檛] understand what they [were] asking [her] to do in the work that [was] given鈥. The practice made her feel 鈥渞eally stressed鈥 and 鈥淸w]hen [she鈥檚] stressed it makes [her] angry, and then [she does] things that get [her] warnings, which gets more Iso[lation]鈥. School did not break law, judge says Collins Rice labelled the practice 鈥渟tigmatising鈥 and 鈥渄eliberately under-stimulating鈥. However, she noted it is 鈥渋ntended as such to be a deterrent and a sanction鈥. She said the “cumulation of time spent in isolation has to be considered not only through the negative lens of timeout of the classroom, but through the positive lens of time in the school”. In documents submitted to the court, GORSE鈥檚 legal team said assessing proportionality was 鈥渆xactly the exercise carried out by its staff, particularly the senior staff members who review isolation decisions鈥. It also claimed children were 鈥渘ot actually isolated 鈥 on any one day there are generally around ten pupils working in each of the two isolation rooms鈥. Some behaviour that led to isolation included physically assaulting another pupil, absconding from lessons and 鈥渟creaming at other students鈥. Collins Rice stated 鈥渆ven the most 鈥榬igorous鈥欌 of discipline policies 鈥渕ust be applied with an open mind as to whether there might be anything about an individual frequently-sanctioned student鈥檚 circumstances which calls for flexibility or a different approach鈥. But she was unable to find the school had 鈥渇ailed to do what the law requires, or has crossed the boundaries of what the law or good practice permits鈥. Calls on government 鈥淭hese judicial review claims ask a court to intervene in the professional world of education provision (and parental choice), including in ways that do not appear to be precedented,鈥 Collins Rice continued. 鈥淚 have not found a principled legal or factual basis for doing so. The claims are dismissed accordingly.鈥 Simpson Millar lawyer Dan Rosenberg, who represented the claimants, said the children鈥檚 evidence was 鈥渃lear: being regularly placed in isolation was unproductive, unpleasant, and distressing鈥. They are 鈥渆xtremely disappointed by the outcome and are taking advice on an appeal鈥 but hope the 鈥渃ase will shine a wider public light on the issues raised鈥. Rosenberg added: 鈥淚n particular, they urge policymakers to give serious consideration to the now widespread and repeated use of isolation in mainstream schools, especially in the context of ongoing conversations about how best to support and include children with special educational needs and disabilities.鈥 However, a GORSE spokesperson said the 鈥渏udgment is a clear endorsement of the work we have done over many years to promote high standards of behaviour鈥. While it was 鈥渞egrettable鈥 the claims were brought 鈥渁t significant public expense鈥, the verdict sends a 鈥渟trong message鈥 across the sector 鈥渁bout the right of schools to apply appropriate sanctions when behaviour falls short鈥.