A dad who took his fight to take his daughter out of school for a holiday to the Supreme Court said the consequences of the ruling against him are "shocking".
John Platt gave a statement outside the London court after losing a year-long legal battle over a holiday to Disney World in Florida which saw his seven-year-old daughter miss seven days of school.
His argument that his daughter’s 92% attendance record meant that she was a "regular" attender in the eyes of the law had won the backing of magistrates and the High Court.
He was furious that five Supreme Court justices ruled that the lower courts were wrong.
His case has now been sent back the case to the magistrates court in the Isle of Wight, where he lives, ordering them to deal with his non payment of his £60 fine, which has since been doubled to £120 for non payment.
They said that "regular" attendance, as defined in law, could only mean following the school’s rules – and getting a headteacher’s permission.
Mr Platt said that the State "was taking the rights of parents away when it comes to making decisions about their children".
The ruling of the court underlines that the law means authorities can fine parents for any absence without the permission of a head teacher and is in accordance with the Welsh Government’s guidance.
Mr Platt said they had "just reversed decades of judicial precedent".
He said: "They didn’t just say that the High Court judge who heard my case, Lord Jones, misinterpreted the law, they have concluded that the earlier High Court decision from 2006 and one from 1969 were also wrong in their interpretation of the law and they should no longer be followed.
"Be in no doubt, despite the judgment, I followed the law precisely as laid down and interpreted by High Court judges in two different cases from ‘69 and 2006.
"They told me that to attend regularly was to attend very frequently, so I decided not to pay a £60 penalty notice, because my daughter had otherwise perfect attendance at school.
"The decision of those High Court judges from 1969 and 2006 informed that decision but here I stand outside the Supreme Court, having been told I was wrong to rely on the decisions of those High Court judges to guide me on the law.
"With this judgement, those precedents have been swept away and the consequences can only be described as shocking.
"To attend regularly no longer means to attend frequently, it now means to attend on all the days and at all the times that the school requires it.
"Every unauthorised absence, including being a minute late to school, is now a criminal offence.
"If you share custody of your child – as I do – with a former partner, and they are late to school on a day you don’t have them, you have committed a criminal offence under this judgment.
"If you decide to keep your child off school for a day because they’ve woken up in the morning, tomorrow morning they wake up they look tired and you decide to keep them off because you’re their parent, you can no longer do that, because if the head teacher second guesses you and marks it as unauthorised, you’ve committed a criminal offence.
"The issue is no longer if it ever was about term-time holidays, it is about the State taking the rights of parents away when it comes to making decisions about their children.
"Many of you might have thought given in 2015 when I took my family on this now infamous term-time holiday, as I was at that time following the law as laid down by several High Court judges, that it would be grossly unfair to retrospectively criminalise me.
“That was very nearly not the case.
“What some of you in the press who’ve had the briefing this morning didn’t know, was that the first draft of this judgement goes back to the magistrates’ court with a direction to convict.
“They weren’t even prepared to give me a trial.
“There has been no trial in this case, this case stopped at half-time because the magistrate said I had no case to answer.
“But the Supreme Court were prepared to send this back with a direction to convict, until my barristers pointed out that they couldn’t do that.
“This case now has to go back to the Isle of Wight magistrates and start all over again.
“I can tell you I have absolutely no intention of pleading guilty to this offence when it goes back to the magistrates’ court.”