AN 11-year-old disabled Malvern girl is among a group of children who have launched a unique High Court case claiming their human rights were violated when they were excluded from schools apparently unable to cope with their special needs.

Jade Fildes, of Five Oaks Close, Malvern, claims Worcestershire County Council denied her a reasonable education for 20 months.

She, along with three others, claims she was denied a basic right to education, with a systemic failure' by various councils resulting in a breach of their human rights. Jade - suffering from pathological demand avoidance syndrome, significant emotional and behavioural difficulties as well as compulsive aggressive disorder - claims she was denied an education while her mother tried to find her a place.

London's High Court was told the children, with disabilities ranging from autism and epilepsy to pathological demand avoidance syndrome and behavioural difficulties, were wholly excluded' for many months from the education system, with no prospect'of alternative learning.

Barrister Nicholas Bowen, acting for all of the children, said none were voluntarily removed from their schools. He claims that the authorities breached the children's rights to a meaningful education, as well as their right to respect for family life, both enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The claim is disputed by Worcestershire County Council and three other councils involved in the case, with the children seeking damages between about £40,000 and about £70,000 for their injury, loss and damage.' Mr Bowen told judge, Mr Justice Field: "Each case shows systemic failure and a lack of resource which could, if applied earlier, have provided some suitable alternative form of education."

Also claiming are Ashley West, 17, of Essex, Zaque Boon, 15, of Suffolk, and a 17-year-old female who cannot be named, of Hertfordshire.

Each of the claims is different, with the children either arguing they were unlawfully excluded from schools and were not provided with suitable alternative education, or that the relevant local authority offered them placements which were not suitable to their special needs.

Responding for each of the councils, barrister, Andrew Warnock, told the court there was no convention right' to attend a particular school or type of school, and no convention right to an education of a particular kind or quality'.

The barrister insisted none of the children were denied access to education as they were either offered placements which they did not take up, or were offered alternative education.

However Mr Bowen said none of the children had asked for a different type of education to that normally available to students in England and Wales, and none were voluntarily removed from their schools.

The case continues.