THE PARK CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16749, 2 June 1922, Page 4

THE PARK CASE.

TEACHER AMD M IN 3STER. INJUNCTION SOUGHT. (Pjeb Press Association) YY' ELLINUTUN, Juno 1. The hearing of the case Hark versus the Minister of Education was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. Sir John Findlay briefly sketched the provisions oi various education Acts ami regulations dealing with the issue oi certificates- Counsel read to the Bench a number of cases where teachers’ certificates had been cancelled by the Minister. He pointed out that teachers oi Native schools, private 1 schools, etc., neld certificates ot com potency from the Minister. These teachers were not subject to the jurisdiction of any education board. His Honor : They do not require a certificate. bir John Findlay: No, but it is a. certificate of qualification. Proceeding, counsel submitted that i'i a matter of this sort the Court had no jurisdiction over the Minister, and quoted authorities in support of his contention. l.ho main point in the present case was this: “ We want to claim the right of exercising control over these certificates.’’ His Honor: The right of appeal given to teachers is essentially different Horn the right of appeal given to Civil Servants. The right of appeal is only right ot appeal against dismissal or termination of their services. Air Myers: There is the grading of teachers from time to time. His Honor: Supposing a teacher s certificate is cancelled, that would not cancel his appointment. If his certificate is cancelled does he lose his position ? . . . Air Myers: That is a question which I confess 1 am not prepared to a newer. His Honor: It is a question which I have to answer. Air Myers: Sot necessarily. Ho undoubtedly is prejudiced in his position, and supposing he is entitled to hold his position it is quite clear ho could not be promoted. Mr Myers then went on to deal with a question asked by the Court with respect to the granting of prohibition or injunction against something which, 'f done, would be futileHis Honor: i was not so much concerned with prohibition, but what crossed my mind was whether an injunction could be granted. Air Myers cited authorities on the point. The Minister, continued counsel, claimed power to so deal with a certificate as to curtail rights which its possession gave. If that could not be substantiated it was submitted that quite apart from prohibition an injunc tion would lie. His Honor: Prima facie, an injunction is against a wrong which is threatened. This is not a threatened wrong. Would a teacher have right cf action if the thing were done. Air Alyers: For damages? His Honor : Yes. Air Alyers submitted that there would be right of action for damage# if the Alinistor had not the power which he claimed. A discussion took place between the Court and counsel as to the relevancy or irrelevancy of the pleading. Sir John Findlay: How can the Minister in charge of the administration of the department hold his peace

when such allegations as bias and predetermination are made against him? His Honor: But any public official might easily and at any time place himself in the most innocent way under a charge of bias or pre-determination. Sir John Findlay: But these charges against .Miss Park did not originate with the Alinister. Months before that an indignant householder and taxpayer had referred to alleged statements made by Aliss Park and had asked if Aliss Park should be allowed to teach young children that Nurse Cavell should be shot. As for the cancellation of Aliss Park’s certificate, continued counsel, the Alinister had made every reasonable inquiry before cancelling it and the whole of the circumstances would show in affidavits counsel could produce that instead of pre-determination, the Alinister had taken the steps followed by him only after the fullest inquiries possible had been made by him, and then only oil the result of those inquiries. The affidavits he wished to produce would show the Court that a numlier of people had wanted to take their children away and did not wish them to l>e taught by Miss Park. Counsel also would show what it was the Alinister had in his mind when he ordered a second inquiry to be marie. His Honor: You are trying to show there was good reason for that inquiry? Sir John Findlay: Yes, I wish to show that this second inquiry was certainly not due to bias or pre-determination. Surely m showing that he desired to hold an inquiry that very fact should be enough to show that the Alinister had not already made up his mind on the subject. His Honor : AVe already know’ Avhat the Alinister said. The only question for us to settle is on the subject of predetermination. Sir John Findlay then said he desired to read some affidavits, the evidence of which would show that the Minister had not prejudiced the matter. His Honor objecting emphatically to the reading of affidavits, Sir John Findlay said he would, of course, have to bow to the Court’s ruling. With all due respect, nevertheless, those affidavits would prove that His Honor again interrupted with an objection that he considered the reading of affidavits should not be done. Air Alyers: Publication of these affi davits, vour Honor, can do no good, and may prejudice the plaintiff very unfairly, because all sorts of affidavits in the Wairarapa district could have been obtained which have not been obtained. It must be assumed that there were grounds for this inquiry. His Honor: The position is as t have stated it. The affidavits are on file. (Tc Sir John Findlay): I can’t stop you reading them, but I cannot consider their evidence as relevant. Sir John Findlay: I am representing a Minister of the Crown, and if youi Honor says these affidavits can’t be rear I must, accept your Honor's ruling, bin I should have thought that, if thes< affidavits would assist to clear the Minister, reading of them should be ai lowed. His Honor : There is no allegation oi charge of bad faith against the Alinister. but purely a charge of a technica offence, as bias. I cannot allow this in quiry to degenerate into a dispute or matters which are certainly, I think irrelevant. Sir John Findlay: All right, you: Honor : but the reading of these affida vits would have made quite clear th< necessity for the Alinister having th:r power which he claimed under the sec tion. The affidavits would disclose wha we consider is very relevant to clear th< Minister; but, having done my best t< discharge my duties, I must, with even

- ! possible respect, defer to your Honor s j ’ ruling. The Alinister was not guilty of j 1 bias or predetermination. He wanted > the inquiry he had ordered so that he j [■ could answer his master (Parliament), t . and that inquiry he knew would either ! i absolve Aliss Park or would give him . b the evidence necessary to justify him in s his subsequent actions under the regula- ; : tions administered by him. Had the , 1 Alinister for Education not been allowed 1 to adminster those regulations, it would - have placed him officially in a position j most embarrassing to a Alinister. His Honor: Was that inquiry intend- - , ed to be* made public? * , Sir John Findlay: How could it bo made public without throwing them 3 open to an action for libel? 4 Air Alyers: Under the circumstances f a public inquiry would be, of course, i improper. His Honor : That is so, unless every--1 body who attended it wished to be liable 1 to a libel action. (Laughter.) His Honor said he would reserve his