The Supreme Court has ruled today that parents can face prosecution in the event that they remove their children from school during term time irrespective of whether their children may otherwise have excellent attendance. The judgment has left many accusing the Government of effectively taxing the poor. A social media storm has erupted since, with one mother saying " It does not mean its right when its more likely that it will be the poorest families affected in order to give their kids a holiday". The Supreme Court appeared to reject the concerns expressed by the High Court about the consequence that a single missed attendance without leave or unavoidable cause could lead to criminal liability. The judgment divides opinion with one camp arguing that education must never be disrupted and that term time holidays damage the education of children and other pupils. However an opposite view has erupted; particularly among families who cannot afford the high prices to take children away over holiday periods According to leading education firm Sinclairslaw, the judgment perhaps highlights a greater danger - namely the idea that school's are in practice making criminal law when they set out their attendance policy. Will this lead to more judicial challenges over unreasonable attendance policies? The Supreme Court considered however that this was not a real risk as there are many trivial offences which are never prosecuted due to sound prosecution policy, or dealt with proportionately by the court stating that many such cases "can be dealt with by either the use of fixed penalty notices", which "recognise that a person should not have behaved in this way but spare him a criminal conviction. If such cases are prosecuted, the court can deal with them by an absolute or conditional discharge if appropriate." However Michael Charles CEO at Sinclairslaw said "The idea that we should leave to policy or discretion whether to prosecute an otherwise law abiding family is dangerous. It invokes the possibility of more conflict between parents and schools which is not conducive to a healthy educational environment for the child. Further it ignores the enormous pressure that some families are under and the likelihood of unnecessary further expense and stress of defending cases that should never have been brought. To incentivise attendance, the court has clearly chosen the stick over the carrot and this creates a danger that parents will have to face court proceedings before demonstrating reasonable excuse. There are all kinds of circumstances in which a child may feel unable to attend at school. An example raised within the proceedings was an occasion where a parent was fined when a child was withdrawn to attend a family funeral. In that instance the head teacher of that school did not agree that this was an authorised absence." Baroness Hale giving judgment stated that "statutes imposing criminal liability should be construed strictly, so as not to impose it in cases of doubt, it is an even more important rule that statutes imposing criminal liability should do so in a way which enables everyone to know where they stand, to know what is and is not an offence. The court went on to say " a child is not to be taken to have failed to attend regularly if he is absent with the leave of a person authorised by the governing body or proprietor of the school to give it. Unlike sickness or unavoidable cause, leave is not a defence. It is part of the definition of the offence. Your child is required to attend in accordance with the normal rules laid down by the school authorities for attendance but the school can make an exception in your case.....if the child fails to attend school regularly. “Full-time” indicates for the whole of the time when education is being offered to children like the child in question." Christopher McFarland another education lawyer within the specialist department said "It is a sad day for parents and an encroachment on parental autonomy. It increases the divide between wealthy and non wealthy parents as each group will have very different life experiences. For families whose children have otherwise exemplary attendance prosecution would seem disproportionate." Others believe that this decision will lead to a pattern of further price increases set by holiday companies as demand during holiday periods will substantially increase. Michael Charles added "The Supreme Court of course is not a political establishment. It is here to interpret the law and it has done so. It is for politicians to decide whether this needs to change. However one of the problems with this case, is that the focus has been placed only upon those families who make decisions to remove children from school to attend holidays. Yet there are many reasons why a child may be withdrawn from school including instances of extreme bullying for example. We should not be criminalising people who make decisions designed to protect children and tar those decisions with the same brush as habitual offenders whose children never attend school without any good reason. I am very concerned that many parents will now have a greater need to seek legal advice when caught in these fraught situations. Be under no doubt the scope to defend these prosecutions have narrowed considerably today."