Truancy laws mean that parents of children who miss school can be fined and prosecuted under a fast-track legal process. But is the system flawed, and should some absence cases be treated as a health issue, not an attendance one? Andrew Kersley reports.
Imagine receiving a letter through the post, informing you that you’re about to be prosecuted for a crime you did not commit. Your defence and plea of not guilty won’t be considered. Instead, you will be found guilty in a private ruling, with only a single judge present in the room. There’s no prosecution, no defendant, no press, and no witnesses. And after all that, you will be left with a criminal record that could cost you your job.
This Kafkaesque scenario is no hypothetical, but the real-life ordeal faced by Scott Fitzsimmons. Accused of failing to ensure his autistic son’s regular school attendance, Fitzsimmons was prosecuted under the single justice procedure (SJP). This fast-track process handles around half of all prosecutions for less serious crimes. However, there’s growing concern among campaigners that it’s leading to a surge in unfair convictions.
Nowhere have those concerns been more acute than among parents facing criminal prosecution when their children miss school. The House spoke to nearly a dozen parents, some with children suffering from chronic illnesses, with special needs, or afraid to leave the house due to grooming incidents. Instead of receiving help to get their child into education, these parents faced automatic prosecution by their local council.
