THE PARK CASE

Hokitika Guardian, 24 January 1922, Page 4

THE PARK CASE

DIRECTOR AND INSTITUTE. WELLINGTON, January 20. In connexion with the . Miss . Park case and the protest of the Educational Institute against the Department’s enquiry, into .the matter, the. folio wing is a resume of the reply forwarded by Mr John Caughley, Director of Education, to the secretary of the Institute :

I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter and in reply have to point out: (1) That if either party to an enquiry is not satisfied with the result of the case, they are entitled to appeal to a higher tribunal. This is what the Carterton School Committee has done. It is the contention of your Institute that the enquiry having been held, say, by the school committee, could not be afterwards referred to the Education Board ae a higher authority or to the j Minister of Education after the Board has dealt with the matter, particularly if the conduct of the enquiry b|y the lesser authority is impunged?

(2) Your assumption that a second trial is contrary to British justice is quite unwarranted. Every day courts order re-hearing or re-trials of causes or disputes on the grounds that the firss trial, even if conducted by the Supreme Court, was improperly conducted, or that evidence was wrongly rejected or that the finding was against the weight of evidence. In this case it is alleged that the proceedings of the Board were in private, that the shorthand record of the evidence was suppressed, that the evidence of expert witnesses was ignored, that the finding of the Board was against the weight of evidence, and was virtually contra- ; dieted by the Board’s subsequent action. It is unjustifiable, therefore, for you to state that the prosecutor det sires a second trial ‘|for the purpose of : bolstering up the weakness if his case that the first trial disclosed,” seeing that the case is to be re-heard on the ' ground' of the alleged improper con- ; duct of the enquiry and the unjustifiable verdict. (3) The Board and the Minister have separate and distinct jurisdiction and powers in this case, (a) The Board can reprimand, transfer, dismiss or acquit a teacher in its employment. .The Minister cannot do this, (b) On the other hand the Minister may suspend or cancel a teacher’s certificate which is issued by the Department. The Board cannot do this. In deciding whether or not a certificate should be suspended or cancelled, the Minister must cause such enquiry to be held as will, in his opinion, properly investigate the case). It is mutely absurd for the Institute to contend that in forming his judgment on a matter cpming within the Minister’s sole jurisdiction, the Minister must Accept' the finding of the Education Board whose jurisdiction applies to another matter. Your ' statement that one enquiry has been held by the "proper authorities” is in the light of the above, untenable, seeing that the Board is not the proper authority to conduci an enquiry as to whether or not .a teacher’s certificate is to he suspended or cancelled.

I have to inform you that whether or not Miss Park attends the enquiry, of which she has had due notice, the enquiry will be held. If the evidence brought forward justifies such action, her certificate may bo suspended or cancelled by order of the Minister. I have to express surprise that under the circumstances the Institute has raised opposition to holding' a full public en-. quiry’ and that it should have thought fit to advise Miss Park not to appear at the enquiry' ordered b.Y. the Minister., This advice Miss Park, will of course, accept at her own risk if Ae leaves the pnse undefended