KEY POINTS:
Schools have been warned to watch out when expelling students, after a 16-year-old took his college to court and won.
The Lynfield College pupil - known in court documents only as "J" - was expelled after misbehaving at a school camp.
He took principal Stephen Bovaird and the Mt Roskill school's board of trustees to the High Court and was reinstated and awarded costs.
The School Trustees Association has warned schools about observing legal boundaries after the case because of its far-reaching implications.
Association president Lorraine Kerr said it served as a wake-up call.
"There are a lot of schools that are worried about what happened. On one hand, that's a good thing that it makes them review their current process.
"It reinforces that we need to make sure that everything we do is within the legal boundaries."
An appeal against the ruling by Mr Bovaird and the board will see the case head back to court.
Mr Bovaird told the Weekend Herald yesterday that the appeal was to seek clarification on how schools should apply the law.
"We are not appealing to have the student removed from the college," he said. "But the board believes that it is very difficult for schools to operate under the judgment that has come back."
Mr Bovaird expected the appeal to be heard by the end of the year.
The school was insured, he said, meaning the costs of the action would not eat into its operational budget.
The original legal case focused on the process the school followed in dealing with J.
J's mother - his "litigation guardian" who cannot legally be named - said she felt the family had no other option than to seek a judicial review after her son was expelled.
She said she feared J would have been shunned by other schools not wanting an expelled 16-year-old in their ranks. He was doing well following his return to class.
"He's actually settled now, he's doing fine. And trying to catch up with his studies because he missed so much of them."
The court papers showed that J had a good track record for most of his four years at Lynfield College.
He was described as positive, polite and co-operative, and had not shown a hint of "turmoil" until this year.
During the Christmas holidays, J lost three friends, one who drowned and two through car accidents, and was bullied.
He had been suspended in March after he was caught wagging with a cannabis pipe in his bag.
He returned to school under strict conditions but was one of five students who misbehaved the following week during a school camp with 36 others at Mt Tongariro.
In court documents, the woman said her son was not involved in the most worrying misbehaviour at the camp - strip poker, in which a girl and boy were reduced to their underwear, or being in bed with a girl.
On return to school, he had been told to leave a geography class when he offered the topic of "anal sex" to a teacher's question about what had gone wrong at camp.
In Mr Bovaird's report to the board about the camp, he said J was "disrespectful to staff", had left camp and needed to be searched for and had been seen smoking a cigarette.
The board's disciplinary committee decided to expel J at a meeting in May at which he appeared "dismissive".
Justice Patrick Keane said in his decision that the case was "highly unfortunate" for J and his family and the school and its board.
His judgment detailed schools' powers to punish students under education laws and noted that principals and boards had to use a fair process and reach a decision that was reasonable, while balancing the interests of the student with the interests of the school as a whole.
Justice Keane said a "breach of natural justice" had occurred in Mr Bovaird's decision to suspend J after the camp.
The judge said that before the principal's ruling a breach of fair process had already occurred because the associate principal and a class dean had acted on complaints about the camp without contacting J's mother.
When the case went to the board, it was ill equipped to "resolve issues of fact" within the time constraints.
The decision to suspend J after the camp and to expel him were ruled invalid and ordered to be quashed.
