To repost what I said about this in the education forum...
I am not surprised. It seemed clear from the relevant legislation that parliament intended "regularly" in section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996 to mean "in accordance with the rules" and not as the lower courts interpreted it. The Supreme Court also noted that the interpretation of the lower courts meant that parents would have no idea whether or not they were committing an offence when taking their child out of school for a day, contrary to the normal practice of the courts that laws imposing criminal liability must be construed strictly to avoid any doubt.
I note also that the Supreme Court refers to the 7 day holiday taken by the father as missing 14 attendances. The 5 day holiday taken by the mother two months previously (for which she did pay the fine) is described as missing 10 attendances. They use a similar approach elsewhere in the judgement, at times referring to each half day missed as an absence. This confirms that each half day missed is a separate absence and parents can be fined accordingly, although I don't know of any LA that actually does so. Most seem to impose a single £60 fine per parent per period of absence.
Personally I agree with the decision. You don't have to send your child to a state school. You can home educate or, if you can afford it, use a private school. But if you use state schools you must follow the rules. You cannot pick and choose which rules to accept. That is not being sheep, as someone upthread alleges. It is being a responsible parent.
I do, however, disagree with those heads who refuse to use the discretion they have to allow term time holidays in circumstances that really demand it, e.g. where the parents have jobs that mean they cannot get time off during school holidays.