Also an appeal panel last year stated in the group hearing that ed psych reports pertaining to conditions that had not been recognised by parents or school prior to the test would not be given any great value
I'm not at all sure that was a wise statement for them to make, but it depends on the context.
I'd agree that a review decision could not
be found non-FCO on the basis of evidence that wasn't available to the review panel!
However, once a review is found to be non-FCO for whatever reason (or if there hasn't been a review), an appeal panel will move on to the 'qualification' stage. It must
then give proper consideration under 'extenuating circumstances' to any new evidence of a previously undiagnosed condition. The more compelling the evidence, the more weight it should carry.
If I alert the panel to a possible/probable SEN issue that has been flagged up by test results and other supporting evidence plus the head teacher report also mentions this and DC is tested after the review has gone in and is found to have SEN then can I argue that the review was not FCO because of the absence of Ed psych to advise?
The stronger the evidence that went to the review panel, the easier it should be to complain about the absence of an Ed Psych - but I don't see how later evidence that never reached the SRP could be used retrospectively in deciding the FCO issue. What matters is the information that was available to the SRP at the time it took its decision.
Also are there any stats available on the success rates of reviews where there has been SEN and the Ed Psych has been present compared to those where Ed psych hasn't?
Not as far as I know.