Parents are breaking the law if they take their children out of school for holidays during term without the permission of the head teacher, the High Court ruled yesterday.

Schools, not parents, must decide whether children can be withdrawn from lessons for holidays or other family activities, Lord Justice Auld and Mr Justice Sullivan ruled.

They declared that parents can face a criminal conviction if they remove children in defiance of a school’s wishes. The court overturned a decision by magistrates in the London borough of Bromley to acquit a woman who took her daughters on two holidays without permission.

Mr Justice Sullivan said the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was charged with failing to secure the attendance of her children at their primary school, in breach of the Education Act 1996.

She had removed the three girls for a week’s holiday in November 2003, which included participation in the finals of a dance contest, even though the school had refused permission for them to be absent.

The mother believed that the contest would be “important for their development”. The judge said that she had also won a holiday competition in January 2004, which led to further unauthorised absences.

Other absences were attributed to medical causes, the mother’s car breaking down, or traffic jams that delayed their arrival at school until after registration had been taken.

All three girls were performing above average at school, but Bromley education authority took the mother to court because of their poor attendance record. However, magistrates acquitted her at a hearing last September, saying that the woman had not failed to secure her daughters’ regular attendance. They said that she should have exercised greater care concerning holidays during term, but concluded that the absences were justified.

Allowing the local authority’s appeal yesterday, Mr Justice Sullivan said that the magistrates had misdirected themselves on the law. They had to decide only the strict liability issue of whether “the children had failed to attend school regularly”. It was plain in law that leave of absence “means leave granted by the school — not leave which magistrates consider might have been justified”. The magistrates “were simply not applying the correct statutory test”.

Lord Justice Auld said that the case should be sent back to the magistrates with a direction to convict the mother, but with an indication that she should receive an absolute discharge in view of the time that had elapsed.

John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, welcomed the ruling. He said: “This will be very helpful to schools and heads who want to put a stop to term-time holidays which interfere with children’s education.”

The Department for Education and Skills has already made clear its disapproval of term-time holidays and has urged head teachers not to grant them unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Tony and Cherie Blair got into trouble with the headmaster of the London Oratory School in 1999, when it became clear that a family holiday in the Seychelles would cause their two sons to miss the first day of term. This emerged less than a week after David Blunkett, then the Education Secretary, had said that children should not be allowed to skip school for term-time travel.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers