Q:
Is there guidance what evidence should tribunals disregard?
If evidence is 3/4 years old but has not been replaced by newer evidence, should this be automatically removed form EHC plans? If evidence is 3/4 years old and matches more recent evidence, should it always be taken out of an EHC plan because it is old? Are there instances where some of it should remain? For instance, evidence that shows progress in a certain area (or lack of progress) would need a start point and a current point in time. Thus, evidence regarding a start point in the past is needed in the plan as part of needs?
A: SenseCheck
- 1 Yes
- 0 No
- 0 Other
- 08 Jan 2025
-
Yes
Simple
I will endeavour to assist by drawing your attention to the following case: AC v London Borough of Richmond on Thames [2020] UKUT 380 (AAC)
In this appeal, it was established that evidence must be relevant. UT Judge Hemingway observed that it was difficult to consider any of the reports before the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) as truly current, with the oldest report being three and a half years old and the most recent just under a year old. However, Judge Hemingway expressed that he "would be resistant to an argument that age alone precludes relevance." The more important consideration was whether the content of the reports, rather than their age, could potentially influence the outcome of the appeal before the FtT.
That said, and speaking generally, it is clear that evidence from a relevant professional, who has received clear instructions and provides a report of sufficient quality, is more likely to be considered relevant the more recent it is. Intuitively, this must be the case, as the FtT is focused on the child or young person's needs at the time of the hearing. However, older evidence can still hold value, particularly in establishing what is known as time-series data (data points recorded over time for analysis).
With regard to your more specific questions, I suggest it would be somewhat challenging to answer them without veering into the realm of legal advice, although some may hold a different perspective.
Sean Kennedy
|
Comment