KEY POINTS:
The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court decision to reinstate a student who was expelled from an Auckland college last year.
The High Court last year overturned a decision by Auckland's Lynfield College to expel a 16-year-old student for "continual disobedience".
The student, identified in court documents only as "J", was first suspended in March 2007 after being caught with a cannabis pipe while in school uniform.
The suspension lasted less than a week before J was allowed back on a number of conditions which included sticking to the school rules from then on.
Within days of his return, J was allegedly acting up on a geography trip, smoking and being rude to teachers and students.
J, along with others on the trip, was suspended a second time.
His mother met with principal Steve Bovaird to argue J's case, but ultimately the school board decided his behaviour had worsened since his first suspension and rather than take him back with the same conditions in place, voted in favour of expulsion.
The decision was challenged and in June 2007 the High Court overturned the expulsion.
The main point of contention for the court was that J's parents had not been consulted until after he had been questioned and expelled - a requirement under the Child Youth and Family Act when a young person is detained or about to be charged with an offence.
The college protested that such a ruling would make it difficult for schools to operate and sought clarification from the Court of Appeal.
"We didn't know what it meant and we didn't know how it would work in schools," Mr Bovaird told NZPA.
"This appeal was never really about the student, it was about clarification."
In fact the school told the court J would be kept on regardless of whether it decided the expulsion was justified.
Mr Bovaird said by the time the case came before the Court of Appeal in May, nearly 12 months had passed during which J had been behaving and the school "didn't want to disrupt him."
The Court of Appeal said guidelines for schools such as the Education Act did not necessitate the involvement of parents until after a child was suspended and the High Court had been wrong to invoke the CYF Act which was intended for criminal investigations.
"In contrast, a principal's initial inquiry into whether a student should be suspended can, at worst, lead to a suspension decision that will trigger a process of review by the school's board within seven days," Justice Mark O'Regan said.
He said the most important thing was to ensure fair treatment of students and "prescribing a set of ridged rules of universal application" would not achieve this.
While the Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court on the issue of parental involvement, it agreed on other aspects of the case.
To suspend or expel a student the Education Act requires reasonable grounds to believe the student's behaviour was harmful or dangerous to other students.
J's second suspension was for breach of the conditions on which the board reinstated him, which should have resulted in his appearing before the board again rather than a fresh suspension.
The court found that as the second suspension was unjustified it could not be considered grounds for expulsion and the High Court's decision was upheld.
The college was required to pay legal costs of $3000.
Mr Bovaird said he had spoken with the school's lawyer earlier today who said he was extremely satisfied with the clarification offered in the decision.
- NZPA
