THE PARK CASE.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17470, 2 June 1922, Page 9

THE PARK CASE.

HEARING CONCLUDED. U'llESs AiiOCIATION TELECinAH.) . WELLINGTON, Juno 1. the Wing of the case, Park versus l»c >Wer of Education, was contimiod in iho Supreme Court to-day, before his Honour Mr Justice Salmon! b.r John Findlay, for the . Minister, briefly sketched the provisions of the various Education Acts and regulations dealing with the issue of certificates. Counsel read to the Court a number of cases where teachers' certificates had been cancelled by the Minister. Ho pointed out that teachers of .Native schools, private M.-hoo. Sj etc., held certificates of competency from the Minister. These teachers wero not subject to the juris--action of any Education Board His Honour: They do not require certihcates? •Sir John Findlay: No, but it is a certificate of qualification. J roceeding, counsel submitted that in a matter of this sort, the Court had no jurisdiction over tho Minister, and quoted authorities in support of In-, contention. "The main point in the present case," lie said, "is this: \\ .; want to claim the right of exercising coiitrol over these certificates." His Honour: The right of appeal given to teachers is essentially different l rom tho right of appeal given to civil servants. The right of appeal is only uie right of appeal against dismistal or termination of their services. Mr M. Myers (for the plaintiff): lhere is a grading of teachers from time, to time. His Honour; Supposing a. teacher's certificate is cancelled, that would not cancel his appointment. If his certificate is cancelled, does he lose his position? Mr Myers; That is a question which I confess I am not prepared to answer. His Honour: It is tho question which I have to answer.

Mr 31.vers: Not necessarily. He undoubfodly is prejudiced in his position, uud supposing he is entitled to hold his position, it is quite clear lio could not bo promoted. Mr Myers then went on to deal with a question asked by the Court with respect to the granting of a prohibition or injunction against something which, if done, would be futile. His Honour: I was not so much coucerned with prohibition, but what crossed my mind was whether an injunction could be granted. Mr Myers cited authorities on the point. The Minister, continued counEel, claimed the power to so deal with a certificate as to curtail the rights which its possession gave. If that could not be substantiated, it was submitted, quite apart from prohibition, an injunction wouid lie. His Honour: A prima facie injunction is against a wrong which is threatened. This is not a threatened wrong. Would a teacher have the right of action if the thing were done? Mt Myers: For damages? His Honour: Yes. My Myers submitted there would be a right of action for damages if the Minister 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 a6ked how a Minister in charge of the administration of a Department could hold his peace when such allegations as bias ana pre-deter-mination were made against him. His Honour: 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' originate with the Minister. Months before that an indignant householder and taxpayer had referred to alleged statements | I made by Miss Park, and had asked if Mise Park should be allowed to teach young children that Nurse Cavell should be shot. As for the cancellation of Miss Park's certificate, continued counsel, the Minister had made every reasonable enquiry before cancelling it, and the whole of the circumstances would show in the affidavits that counsel could produce that instead of' predetermination. the Minister had taken the steps followed by him only after the fullest enquiries possible had been made by him, and then only on tho result of those enquiries. In the affidavits he wished to produce, he would show the Court that a number of people had wanted to take their children away, and did not wish them to be taught by Miss Park. Counsel .also would show what it was the Minister had in his mind when he ordered the second enquiry to be made. His Honour: You are trying to show there was a good reason for that enquiry ? . . . Sir John Findlay.: Yes, I wish to show that this second enquiry was certainly not duo to bias or p re-deter raination. Surely in showing that he desired to hold an enquiry, that very fact should be enough to show that the Minister had not already made up his mind on the subject. His Honour: We already know what the Minister said. The only question for us to settle is on the subject of pre-determination. Sir John Findlay then said he desired to read some affidavits; the evidence of which would show that the Ai. mister had not been prejudiced iu the matter. His Honour objecting emphatically to the reading of tiie affidavits, Sir John Dindlay said 'he wouid, of course, have to bo»v to the Court's ruling. With all due respect, nevertheless, those affidavits would prove that— His Honour again interrupted with an objection that he considered the reading ot the affidavits should not be done. , .1 Mr Myers: The publication of these affidavits, your Honour, can do no good, and may prejudice the plaintiff verv unfairly, because all. sorts of affidavits in the Wairarapa district could have been obtained • which • have not been obtained. It must bo assumed that there were grounds for this enquiry. . . . His Honour: The position is as I have stated it. The affidavits are on the W To Sir John Findlay: I can't stop vou from reading them, but I cannot consider their evidence as relevant. Sir John Findlay: I am representing a Minister of the. Crown, and if your Honour says tlieso affidavits can t be read, I must accept your Honour si ruling, but I should have thought that I if these affidavits would assist to clear | the Minister, the reading of them should bo allowed. _ j His Honour: There is no allegation or charge of bad faith against the Minister, but purely a charge of a technical offence as bias. 1 cannot allow this enquiry to degenerate into a dispute on matters which are certainly as I think, irrelevant Sir John Findlay: All right, your Honour but tho reading of these affidavits would have made qnite clear the necessity for the Minister bavihg that power which he claimed under the section. The affidavits would disclose what we consider is very relevant to clear the Minister, but having done my best to discharge my duties, 1 must, with every possible respect, defer to your Honour's • ruling. The Minister was not guilty of bias or pre-determination. He wanted an enquiry, had ordered an enquiry so that he could answer his master (Parliament), and that enquiry he knew would either absolve Miss Park or would give mm the evidence necessary to justify him in his subsequent actions under the regulations administered by him. Had the Minister for Education not been allowed to

(Continued at foot of next column.)

administer those regulations, it would have placed him official}; in a position most "embarrassing to the Minister of a public office. His Honour: "Was that enquiry intended to be made public? Sir John Findlay. How could it be made public without throwing them open to an action for libel? Mr Myers: Under the circumstances a public" enquiry would be, of course, improper. Hia Honour: That is so, unless everybody who attended it wished to be liable to a libel action. (Laughter.) His Honour said he would reserve his decision.