C/02/0037
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 125
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE                                   
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION)
(MR JUSTICE TURNER)
							Royal Courts of Justice
							Strand
							London WC2A 2LL

							Wednesday 6 February 2002
B e f o r e:

LORD JUSTICE LATHAM

- - - - - -

T H E   Q U E E N
(ON THE APPLICATION OF PETER GAISIANCE)
Applicant

- v -

DR RON MCLONE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE OCR OXFORD CAMBRIDGE
EXAMINATIONS & RSA (OCR) AND THEIR ASSOCIATES
Respondents
- - - - - -
(Computer Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street,
London EC4A 2AG
Tel: 020 7421 4040  Fax: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -

The Applicant appeared in person.

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented.

- - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	LORD JUSTICE LATHAM:This is an application for permission to appeal against a refusal by Turner J to permit the applicant to apply for judicial review. The application for judicial review was directed to the examining board which ran the examinations taken by the applicant in the summer of 2001. Underlying the application is his clear concern that he has not been dealt with fairly in relation to his marks, although the form of the application is somewhat unusual. 
2.	The applicant bases his application on the following grounds:
“1. The OCR and its Associated and their servants had fettered the proper performance of its duty by acting unlawfully to disclose to the media and to the Commons the individuals candidate's particulars, scripts and subjects to the third party which undermined the impartiality of the examiners.
2. The OCR and its Board of Committee had acted ultra vires (beyond the scope of its power) to breach on Confidentiality of data or to disclose to the third party the test taker's particulars, scripts and subjects without his consent.
3. The OCR and its Board of Committee used procedural ultra vires by exercising its discretion to do what they like rather than what is fair and right.”
3.	There is no doubt that the applicant believes that he is the victim of a longstanding conspiracy. The material which he has put before the court to support that includes material from the House of Commons in which he says that the debates in the Commons show that there must have been confidential information relating to him made available by or through the agency of the examining board which enabled MPs, and indeed Ministers, to debate in the way that they did. There is no purpose to be served in my going through the details of the material in the House of Commons. Whatever the applicant may believe, there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that there was any material leaked in the way that he alleges; certainly nothing to suggest that it was leaked in a way that could affect the decision about which he complains as to his examination grades. The Commons debates were nothing to do with him. 
4.	The examinations themselves were the Law and Economics “A” level examinations, as to which the examiners gave him a grade “U”. He applied for a review of those marks. The review was reported to the applicant by a letter of 5 September 2001 in which the grade was confirmed. He appealed. There was a meeting held on 1 November 2001 at which his appeal was considered, together with the correspondence. The basis of his appeal was clearly very similar to the basis of the application to this court, in other words based upon assertions that in some way or another there had been a breach of confidentiality that affected the validity of the examination or marking process. 
5.	As was recorded in the notes of the meeting, the search in Parliamentary records failed to find any reference to Mr Gaisiance or any material which suggested that anything said or done by Mr Gaisiance could in any way have informed any of the debate in the Commons or in the media. Accordingly it was concluded that there was no basis to his appeal. He was so informed by letter of 7 November 2001. 
6.	The position, therefore, is that he remains graded “U” in those two examinations. That grading will not enable him to carry forward his hopes, I anticipate, of being able to achieve further academic or professional advancement. 
7.	The applicant has provided the court today with the scripts which he eventually obtained from the Board and have been appended to the bundle which I have read. It is clear from those scripts that the marking, which was recorded as supporting the grade “U” results, was clear and unanimous. Reading the scripts, one can readily understand why that grading was applied. 
8.	There is absolutely nothing in the material before this court which could justify the conclusion that those gradings were other than properly assessed, properly reviewed and properly dealt with procedurally by way of appeal by the examining Board. It follows that there is no basis upon which this court could interfere with the decision of the Board.
9.	The application is accordingly dismissed. 
Order: Permission to appeal refused.