 |
 |
Access to justice by students in general or by disabled students in higher education It was written that: "It's not a decision I'd like to defend in Court! There isn't a definition of disability in the Student Support Regs and there is no guidance which ever suggests that we should refer to a Benefits Agency definition. The notes do say that LEAs should consider all cases where extra costs are incurred in studying because of a physical disability or specific learning difficulty. If you feel this is the case and you have the LEA's decision in writing, it may be worth asking DfES for their opinion - the Student Suport team in Darlington can be contacted on 01325 392822. They can't give you a definite answer but may be able to advise on how they feel the case should be treated. This may give weight to the discussion with the LEA." The Research Project on 'Access to higher education by disabled students' has looked into the experiences of disabled people in accessing employment (regarding the Part II of the Disability Discirmination Act (1995) and in accessing school (regarding various education acts lastly revised by the Part I of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, SENDA (2001). The second series of epxeriences mostly relate to Local Education Auhorities (LEAs). The project has also looked into the experiences of students in higher education and professionals in accessing justice based on the case law. DDA (1995) has been in operation since 2 December 1995 and there are now over 300 appellate cases decided by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal (or Court of Session Inner House in Scotland). Similar amount of appellate cases emerged regarding LEAs in the appellate courts (High Court, Court of Appeal, House of Lords, and European Court of Human Rights); the most notable case of Phelps was taken against a number of LEAs. Without going into the technical details and but with taking the potential 'misinformation claims' put forward occasionally in this list and in another place (a series of research papers are currently going through the editoral process), it would be helpful to make four notes on regarding the original message and the message cited as above for information purposes for preventing the provision of wrong advice to the related students, in part response to the public claims funded by tax payers' money that SENDA or the revised part IV of the DDA would make it possible for disabled students to bring their claims to the courts freely and widely (indeed the lookers for 'misinformation' in this list should visit these public claims, rather than this message): First, it has been common to cite and use as evidence the findings of the disability tests carried by Benefits Agency under the DDA (1995), as recognised by the appellate courts. Second, Local Education Authorities (LEAs) have had substantial amount of discretion in making grant decisions, recognised even the highest court, House of Lords or ECHR. Additionally there has been substantial body of case law on student support in recent years. Again here, the grant making agencies have had substantial degree of discretion in their decision making processes, as recognised by the courts. Finally, the substantial body of case law on access to justice by students in higher education in recent years suggests that this access has been problematic and many cases have been thrown out due to procedural errors or time limits without the case being tried in its substance. In short it appears that as the courts noted students had been ill-advised in bringing their cases to courts. ________________________________ Ozcan KONUR Postal address: Rehabilitation Resource Centre (Walmsley Building Room W223), City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, The United Kingdom. E-mail: [log in to unmask] Research project URL: http://www.student.city.ac.uk/~cx639/index.htm Phone: 020 7040 0271 _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com