'Home schooling' couple get truancy fines

Clive and Elaine Swift, of The Granthams, Lambourn, were accused of failing to ensure the regular attendance of their child at John O’Gaunt School in Hungerford.
They had previously admitted committing the offence between April 22 and July 23 this year in a letter sent to Newbury magistrates.
At that previous hearing on October 23, sentencing was adjourned until their financial means could be determined, and to give them another chance of attending to offer mitigation.
But at the subsequent sentencing, on Thursday, November 27, the pair again failed to attend court and the hearing was concluded in their absence.
Alex Kirk, prosecuting on behalf of the education authority, West Berkshire Council, outlined the repeated, unauthorised absences from school and said there was now “real concern” for the child’s education.
Previous attempts by the Swifts to provide home education proved unsuccessful, the court heard, and the child had returned to John O’Gaunt School.
But an “impact report” from head teacher Sarah Brinkley outlined the negative effect the continued absences were having on the child’s education.
Magistrates heard that the child had the potential to achieve a number of GCSEs at levels A* to C if attendance was maintained.
Mr Kirk said it had been impossible to get both parents to fully engage with the authorities despite numerous letters, texts, telephone calls and home visits.
He added that the child had been offered one-to-one support but had not attended school long enough to benefit.
Mr Kirk said “No medical evidence was provided for the absences, despite requests.”
On one occasion a staff member saw the child in Hungerford High Street during school time and, on others, the court heard, the parents failed to attend meetings arranged to address the problem.
Finally, said Mr Kirk, the education welfare services managed to see Mr Swift during an unannounced home visit.
He added: “He told them they would have to speak to Mrs Swift. Another home visit was arranged and the concerns over the child’s absence were clearly explained to her. The mother said she would be home educating the child.
“However, because of previous failed attempts, she was warned she would be prosecuted.”
The Swifts provided a statement of their financial means but presiding magistrate Sue Campbell said: “The court can not make a Parenting Order because the parents aren’t here.”
Instead, Mrs Swift was fined £260 and ordered to pay £150 costs plus a statutory surcharge of £27.
Mr Swift was fined £135 and ordered to pay £150 costs plus a statutory surcharge of £27.