Expulsion appeal fails

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33252, 15 June 1973, Page 3

Expulsion appeal fails

(N.Z. Press Association) i WELLINGTON, June 14. The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal brought by a former Christchurch Girls’ High School pupil, Wendy Ann Rich, against a Supreme Court verdict upholding the decision of the board of governors to expel her from the school. Miss Rich was one of two girls who led a walk-out during religious observance at morning assembly and issued a pamphlet calling on other pupils at the school also to (walk out, in protest against ■ “compulsory religious studies.” The other girl, Helen Leonard, was also dismissed from the school and joined I Miss Rich as a plaintiff in the Supreme Court at Christchurch in February, but she ;did not appeal. The Appeal Court comprised Mr Justice McCarthy; (presiding), Mr Justice Richmond, and Mr Justice White. Miss Rich was represented by Mr S. G. Erber and Mr I. jJ. D. Hall, and the board of

j governors by Mr D. L. Mathieson. Decision by the Appeal Court was reserved last i month. “NOT PROHIBITED" Delivering judgment today, , Mr Justice McCarthy said there was nothing in the Edu- » cation Act or any other sta- , tute prohibiting religious ob- > servance in State secondary: ' schools. >i Although there was no; < i wide publication by the; llschool of the practice to, grant exemption to a girl bringing a letter from her jiparent, “its existence was - fairly generally known.” t “Neither of the two girls,; i when asked why they had: r not taken this course, sug-i ) gested they did not know! t they could have sought ex-: - emption,” he said. The Education Act con- . tained a number of provisions 1 conferring disciplinary j powers on principals and > governing bodies. J “It will be seen that the] chain of disciplinary action, must have as its beginning; ’lsome serious gross injurious I 1 misconduct or incorrigible ■; disobedience which makes; ■ the pupil’s attendance at the, I school detrimental to herself . or other pupils,” his Honour : I said.

“Mr Hall contended that a refusal to take part in reli--1 gious observance could not t fairly be said to come within any of these severe descriptions, nor could rhe mere handing out of pamphlets in : defence of a claimed right of 1 students to exercise freedom ’ in matters of religion. “But I think that argument, , wholly untenable,” his Hon-; ■our said. “It is patent that, the girls were not expelled , for walking out of assembly: ' but for their action in organI ising opposition to school; ''authority.” His Honour said the Court, ' rejected a submission that the continued presence of the j j principal (Miss J. D. Frisk); during the board’s deliberations was contrary to the; , rules of natural justice. He said that Section 198, of the Education Act pro- , vided for the principal of any secondary school to be entitled to attend any meeting of the governing body, except where the meeting was i hearing a complaint against ithe principal, where the sub-, iject under discussion was. jone in which the principal, had a pecuniary interest, or ,where a governing body re-, ,sponsible for other schools, was considering matters re-‘ dating solely to such other i I schools.