SUPREME COURT School writ evidence completed

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33141, 3 February 1973, Page 19

SUPREME COURT School writ evidence completed

The hearing of an application for a writ of certiorari {quashing a decision of the Christchurch Girls’ High School board of governors in October, 1972. to suspend two pupils until the end of the school year and to expel them, was adjourned until Monday by Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday. The grounds for the suspension and expulsion by the defendant board were that the pupils "organised a protest at the school calculated to incite other pupils to defy the school’s authority.” The decision was made by the board after the two pupils organised a walkout of about 30 girls from morning assembly at the school in protest against religious observances at the assembly on October 13. Mr Justice Wilson is presiding over the hearing which began on Thursday. When the adjournment was taken evidence for the defendant board had been completed. Legal argument will be heard on Monday. The plaintiffs, Wendy Ann Rich, aged 17, and Helen Patricia Leonard, aged 16, have applied to the Court, through their fathers, for declarations nullifying the proceedings and decision of the board. RULING GIVEN Messrs J. G. Leggat and S. G. Erber appeared for the plaintiffs and Messrs D. L. Mathieson, of Wellington, and G. K. Panckhurst for the defendant board. After the conclusion of evidence his Honour gave a ruling on what he said was the most important single fact in the. case. The point was whether the headmistress of Christchurch Girls’ High School, Miss J. D. Prisk, had made a comment during the board’s deliberation on October 24 regarding harfn to the school if the girls returned. There was a conflict in the evidence on that matter. His Honour said that he had decided it was the recollection of Mr D. J. Clark, a solicitor to the board, that should be relied upon. He did not think that he could distinguish between Miss Prisk and Mr Clark as truthful wit- * nesses and witnesses of integrity.

“But on the whole the probabilities must favour Mr Clark,” his Honour said. “There are two reasons for this. The lesser is that there is no reference to the remark in the minutes. The more important one is that he himself had assured the girls’ counsel that he would make

sure that no further matter was introduced by Miss Prisk, who remained during the deliberations. “I do not think Mr Clark at any rate having given that assurance would either be careless about what happened —in that he would not be alert for any possible breach —or that having heard what she proposed to say would not stop her. TWO WITNESSES “Contrary to what Miss Prisk and Mrs Cowell believe, I hold that there was nothing said by Miss Prisk during the deliberations of the board; after the girls and their counsel had retired, as to the consequences to the school of the possible return of the girls to the school,” said his Honour. Ruth Janice Cowell, a member of the defendant board, said that at a meeting of the sub-committee with the parents of the plaintiffs on October 17, Professor A. A. Conway explained to the parents that the reason why the girls were suspended was because they organised a protest against the authority of the school and not for walking out of assembly. At the board meeting of October 24 two members were not in favour of the decision for expulsion. During; the time witness had been on the board, almost three years, the board had not issued any directions to Miss Prisk as to the running of school assemblies to witness’s knowledge. A resolution confirmed the principal’s right in deciding the manner and conduct of assemblies on October 16. Asked if she knew prior to the meeting of October 16 that the school assembly included some religious content witness said that she did not know personally but other members of the board said at that meeting that they were well aware of religious observances at morning assemblies and of arrangements that were made for exemptions from attendance over a period of 30 years. Asked what part Miss Prisk played in the board’s deliberations on October 24 Mrs Cowell said that Miss Prisk was questioned about the requirements for the university entrance examination. Miss Prisk made comments about the effect on the discipline of the school that the return of these two girls would have. Miss Prisk had said that it would have a most adverse effect. Mr Clark played no part in the deliberations but he did become involved in an ad-

visory capacity on procedures regarding resolutions and amendments, said Mrs Cowell. Witness admitted that Miss Prisk had told the board that it would be bad for the school for these girls to be readmitted before the board, except for Dr Field and Professor Conway, reached the conclusion that it was not in the interests of the school to have the girls back. David John Clark, a barrister and solicitor, said that on October 18 he was consulted by the defendant board about the case. After Mr Erber returned and said that in his opinion neither Miss Prisk nor witness should be present during deliberations witness replied that Miss Prisk was entitled to be present under section 198 of the Education Act and that the board was entitled to have its solicitor present. PROCEDURE Witness indicated to Mr Erber that witness would ensure that there was no further participation by Miss Prisk in any adverse way in the interests of the girls. Except for procedural matters involving resolutions witness did nothing further. Mr Clark said that he disagreed with the evidence of both Miss Prisk and Mrs Cowell that Miss Prisk made an adverse comment about the effect the girls return to the school would have. Early in the meeting there were comments from members on that subject. Miss Prisk asked if she could make a comment and witness in effect advised her not to and advised the acting chairman that she should not comment. That * was accepted by Miss Prisk and her part in the proceedings was confined to ascertaining the effect on the girls! on their chances of accrediting for university examination if they were expelled immediately. Witness thought that the misconception arose because Miss Prisk had made the comment at another meeting. To Mr Leggat Mr Clark said that he was confident that Miss Prisk asked if she could make a comment at the meeting of October 24 and he had said no. Witness would not be dogmatic as to any later date but it was not within his recollection of that meeting. NATURAL JUSTICE Mr Clark admitted that on his own evidence he was contemplating allowing comment provided in his mind it was not adverse. Mr Leggat: Did it not occur to you as offending a basic concept of natural justice?— No.

At this point His Honour, -jintervened and said that, ini ijhis opinion, there was no. question that if Miss PrisK ; had given to the board while* Jit was deliberating her! >'opinion as to the effect of > the girls being allowed to reJturn to the school, and if that jview were plainly adverse, it 1 ,lwas a breach of natural jus-1 ' Tice. ; After the afternoon ad- ’ journment Joan Mary Prisk,* headmistress of Christchurch ' Girls’ High School, was cross-; I examined by Mr Leggat as ■ she was not cross-examined j after she gave her evidence! din chief because of an arTrangement between counsel. Mr Leggat: Can you point .{to any document, statute, ; j syllabus, curriculum or otherwise which deals with the - holding of any religious obI servance in State secondary ■ schools?—No. Miss Prisk agreed that there was no document which she could point to which referred to the necessity of a pupil to bring a note from ' her parents to excuse her ‘{from religious observances? ’{Witness said that the practice was established by custom. So you wouldn't know that* ’ any child of her parents! j would have any knowledge of; j this custom? — No. I . [assumed that any par- ' ent who felt strongly would know he or she could ap- , proach me. DISAGREEMENT Do you mean a parent disagreeing on a matter of a school rule or practice and feeling strongly would thereby know he or she could ap proach the school and obtain ,an exemption from anything about which they felt, : strongly? — I think this is| under a slightly different I category. Miss Prisk agreed that the first time that she ever told a group of pupils that they: ; could obtain exemption from . religious observances at, ■ assembly was in the foyer on October 13 after pupils! had walked out of assembly. Three or four of the 30 girls involved applied for exemp- ) tion after that. ■ Did you say it wasn’t easy 'for someone not familiar with I the school to see what the* '.return of the girls to the school would mean? — Words Ito that effect, yes. Witness denied that she said that she looked for thej i support of the board in this • I situation. She had not said t it during the deliberations ,'but she might have said it at an earlier meeting. She felt I •lit was her right to draw the : ■ attention of the board to I • those matters but she did not* jsee herself as a prosecutor *in the case. I You wanted those girls out | jof the school, didn’t you?— If felt that, in the interests of I | the school, after the action! I they had taken and as a I result’of the publicity it was ito the general harm of the 'school and the control of the" school if they came back. You wanted them out?—l would stick to what 1 have I said. His Honour: Not that you : wanted them out but you didn't want them back. — I [think that is it. Miss Prisk admitted that she made considerable mention of the matter in her prize-giving report but she did not mention the girls by [name. ' Did it occur to you that these proceedings were still coming before the Court I when you made those remarks?—No, I didn’t think that the case would ever icome about. I Miss Prisk said that up to that point the board and wit-i iness had not really expressed! (to parents or anyone else iwhat the real facts of the' situation were. The girls had put their case before the bar i of public opinion and witness , (was not setting out to criti-

cise. She was merely stating the facts. After the completion of the cross-examination of Miss Prisk his Honour said that he [had formed a very high opinion of her truthfulness and integrity but there was one matter in which her evidence was in conflict with [that of another person who was also a person of truthfulness and integrity. That person had said that she had asked for permission to make a comment at the meeting on October 24 and he advised that she should not be allowed to make it, and that she did not. Miss Prisk said that she was certain that she did not make the comment at the meeting before the injunction because there was a transcript of whai she had said She had a faint recollection of Mr Clark saying that she must not bring forward any new evidence. "But I am practically cerjtain in my mind that I did say something,” said Miss Prisk. His Honour: That it would [be a bad thing for the school to bring them back?—Yes. I jhad said it several times be [fore and would doubt that it [would prejudice anyone much at that time. The other thing is that it doesn't ap pear in the minutes. “I am in the difficult position of having two persons whose truthfulness I don’t doubt giving conflicting evidence,” said his Honour.