X v Bovey - [2014] NZHC 1103

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PLAINTIFF.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CIV-2014-454-10 [2014] NZHC 1103

IN THE MATTER of an applicaton for Judicial Review

BETWEEN

X Plaintiff

AND

DAVID BOVEY First Defendant

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PALMERSTON NORTH BOYS' HIGH SCHOOL

Second Defendant

Hearing:
14 May 2014

(Heard at Wellington)

Counsel:

T G A Manktelow for Plaintiff
J O Upton QC and P J Reardon for Defendants

Judgment:

22 May 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
4.50 pm on the 22nd day of May 2014.

Solicitors: Roger Crowley, Wanganui for Plaintiff
Lawler & Co, Auckland for Defendants

X v BOVEY [2014] NZHC 1103 [22 May 2014]

Background

[1] The plaintiff (X) was a pupil at Palmerston North Boys’ High School (PNBHS). He was caught smoking cannabis off school grounds but while in school uniform and during school hours. He was suspended by the Rector, Mr Bovey, the first defendant, and later expelled by the disciplinary committee of the School Board of Trustees (the Board), the second defendant. He seeks judicial review of the decisions of the Rector and the Board. The essence of the claim, in respect of both decisions, is that the Rector and the disciplinary committee had predetermined the outcome and that they failed to consider properly the circumstances of the breach of the rules, and failed to take into account personal mitigating circumstances of X. The plaintiff also challenges the validity of the appointment of the disciplinary committee and the delegation of the Board’s power to it.

The law

(a) The legislation

[2] Suspension and expulsion of a student from a state school are governed by the Education Act 1989 (the Act). Most relevantly ss 13, 14(1) and 17(1) provide:

13 Purpose

The purpose of the provisions of this Act concerning the standing-down, suspension, exclusion, or expulsion of a student from a State school is to—

(a) provide a range of responses for cases of varying degrees of seriousness; and

(b) minimise the disruption to a student's attendance at school and facilitate the return of the student to school when that is appropriate; and

(c) ensure that individual cases are dealt with in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

14 Principal may stand-down or suspend students

(1) The principal of a State school may stand-down or suspend a student if satisfied on reasonable grounds that—

(a) the student's gross misconduct or continual disobedience is a harmful or dangerous example to other students at the school; or

(b) because of the student's behaviour, it is likely that the student, or other students at the school, will be seriously harmed if the student is not stood-down or suspended.

17 Board's powers when suspended student 16 or older

(1) If a student who is 16 or older has been suspended from a State school, the board may—

(a) lift the suspension at any time before it expires, either…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading X v Bovey

Details

AGLC: X v Bovey [2014] NZHC 1103
Case: [2014] NZHC 1103
Decision Date: 22 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

X, a student at Palmerston North Boys' High School (PNBHS), sought judicial review of his suspension and subsequent expulsion from the school, challenging the decisions of the Rector, Mr Bovey, and the Board of Trustees. The core of the claim was that the Rector and the disciplinary committee had predetermined the outcome and failed to consider the circumstances of the breach of school rules, as well as personal mitigating factors. Additionally, X argued that the disciplinary committee did not have proper delegated authority from the Board to make the expulsion decision, and that the committee did not have a quorum. The High Court of New Zealand, Palmerston North Registry, dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court found that the process followed by the Rector and the Board of Trustees met the legal obligation to deal with X's case in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Court held that there was no evidence to support the claim that the Rector had predetermined the outcome of the suspension decision. The Court also found that the Board had properly delegated its powers to the disciplinary committee, and that the two trustees who participated in the hearing constituted a quorum. The Court dismissed the application for judicial review and reserved costs for potential future submissions by the parties.

Orders