THE PARK CASE.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIII, 25 May 1922, Page 3

THE PARK CASE.

TEACHER SUES OFFICIALS

MINISTER’S ACTION CHALLENGED

(Per Press Association— Copyright).

WELLINGTON, May 24

In the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr Justice Salmond, argument is being heard in the case of Jean Glayds Park, of Carterton, school teacher, against Christopher James 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 connexion with her school duties. On behalf of plaintiff it is claimed that the regulation under which the Minister was proposing to cancel or suspend the license of plaintiff was ultra vires, and that if the regulation was valid the Minister had shown such bias as to disentitle him to exercise the discretion conferred upon him by the regulation.

Mr Myers appears for plaintiff, and the Solicitor-General (Mr Wm. C. MacGregor), with him Sir John Findlay and Mr Hart (Carterton), for the defendants.

The statement of claim, after setting forth the particulars of the case, concluded with a claim that a writ be issued by the Court prohibiting defendants from holding the inquiry directed by the Minister, or, in the alternative, that a writ of injunction be issued restraining the defendants from proceeding with tiie inquiry and restraining tho Minister from cancelling plaintiff’s certificates ; or, in the further alternative, that a writ of certiorari be issued commanding the defendants to send to the Court a direction or other warrant or authority for the holding of the said inquiry. Mr Myers, opening for the plaintiff, said that many affidavits were filed, but he hoped the Court would not have to read many of them, and suggested that much of the contents was irrelevant. He only proposed at present to deal with the general question, unless the matter of certiorari arose. The Judge assented that the facts should be left alone as much as possible. IMPORTANT POINT INVOLVED. Mr Myers said that the question of law involved iwas v ery serious, as if the other side’s view was sound every teacher was absolutely in the power of the Minister of Education of the day. He then proceeded to develop his argument, contending that teachers were not the employees of the Minister, but of the Education Board. The statute gave them security of tenure and the right of appeal in the event of dismissal. The Minister claimed the right to cancel the certificate of any teacher, and that there was no appeal. He contended that if the regulation was read literally it was in conflict with the statute, or at all events with the plain intention of the legislature. THE DEFENCE.

The Solicitor-General (Mr MacGregor), for the Department, claimed that power was given to issue a certificate, which implied power to cancel, and the regulation was therefore valid. The Judge remarked that the Statute gave the right to appeal, and counsel claimed that the orotection was onjy against the Education Board ana ret 'against the Minister. Mr MacGregor reiterated that if the Department had the right to issue certificates it must have the corresponding right to withdraw them. Sir John Findlay contended that the Minister had a perfect right to hold an inquiry and to cancel a certificate. He quoted cases where a teacher was found guilty of a criminal act, and the Board merely accepted the resignation while the Minister cancelled the certificate. In the interests of the public the Minister should have such power. It was evident that the Act intended that the Minister should be able to exercise the power.

Mr Myers contended that it was highly dangerous for a Minister to be able to cancel certificates at will. There would be no security of tenure for teachers. The institute knew no case where a Minister exercised the power. The case is not finished.