MISS PARK'S CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 121, 24 May 1922, Page 7

MISS PARK'S CASE.

SEQUEL TO INQUIRY. ACTION AGAINST MINISTER. (By Telegraph.—rrcss Association.! WELLINGTON, this day. In the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr. Justice Salmond, argument is being heard in the case of Jean Gladys Park, of Carterton, school teacher, against Christopher dames Parr, Minister of Education, and Arthur D. Thomson, retired Assistant Public Service Commissioner. The Minister had instructed Mr. Thomson to hold an inquiry into statements alleged to have been made by plaintiff in connection with her school duties. On behalf of the plaintiff it is claimed that the regulations under which the Minister was proposing to cancel or suspend the license of plaintiff was ultra vires, and that if Cue regulation was valid the Minister had shown such bias as to disentitle him to exercise the discretion conferred upon him by regulation. Mr. Myers appears for plaintiff, and the Solicitor-General, with him Sir John Findlay and Mr. Hurt (Carterton), for defendants. HISTORY OF THE CASE. The charges against Miss I'ark arose from a letter written by her and published, protesting against the court's conviction and the board's dismissal ot Miss Wcitzel. The Education Board committee which held an inquiry into the charges against Miss Park found as follow:—"While the school committee, tliTough its counsel, definitely disavows any charge of disloyalty against Miss Park, this question has so frequently been referred to in the Press and circulated throughout the district that full evidence was taken on it and it was established beyond all doubt that no charge of disloyalty could stand against Miss Park.'' Miss Park, in giving her evidence, admitted that she had written the letter without full knowledge of the facts. In these circumstances she expressed regret nnd desired to withdraw her references to the department and to the board. In reaped, nf her references to the Minister of Education the committee found that Miss Park bad committed a grave indiscretion. The Carterton School Committee was dissatisfied with the Education Board's inquiry and sent a deputation to the Minister of Education to protest. They objected to the inquiry having been held in secret, and claimed that the board's finding was deaci against the evidence. They took strong exception to a letter published by Miss Park ami said their views were supported by the inspectors and headmaster of the school. This nnd other evidence was suppressed, and they asked the Minister to insist on its beinp published.

The Minister in reply said the Director of Education, who was present, hnd supplied him with notes, which showed that most extraordinary methods had prevailed, indicating gross bias and unfairness and a predetermination of the issue. He would confer with the Department as to whether further action Was necessary in the interests of ordinary justice. On the following day it was announced that, the Minister had determined to hold a public inquiry over which Mr. A. D. Thomson, Assistant Public Service Commissioner, would preside.

On .lanuary 25, the Wellington Education Board discussed the case, and while entirely exonerating Miss Park from charges of disloyalty, urged her to attend the inquiry.

The solicitor for Miss Park. Mr. P. 11. Taylor, stated that proceeding* were being taken in the Supreme Court toi test the legality of the action of the Minister of Education in holding a second inquiry, also to test the power ol the Minister in respect to his claim that he has the right to cancel a public school teacher's certificate.