IN THE MOOT SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND UNDER EDUCATION ACT 1989 BETWEEN DUNCAN SMITH ​
Appellant AND ROBERT QUILLIAMS ​
First Respondent THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ST PAULUS COLLEGE FOR BOYS ​
Second Respondent SYNOPSIS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS Senior Counsel:
Junior Counsel:
Solicitor:
NZ HIGH SCHOOL / COLLEGE
Team: MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS SUBMITS; 1.0 In the case of both decisions, the Principal and the Board of Trustees of St Paulus College for Boys respectively had not predetermined the outcome. 1.1 The test that outlines what a predetermined decision is, is that the decision maker’s mind "was not open to persuasion" throughout the process. X v Bovey ​
[2014] NZHC 1103, May 22, 2014, McKenzie J at para [6] & [20] CREEDNZ Inc. v Governor General [​
1981] 1 NZLR 172 (CA) at pg 194 ln 14 ­15 and pg 196 ln 46 1.2 That the Principal kept an open mind during the decision making process with regards to the suspension meeting. X v Bovey ​
[2014] NZHC 1103, May 22, 2014, McKenzie J at para [14] CREEDNZ Inc. v Governor General [​
1981] 1 NZLR 172 (CA) 1.3 That the Board of Trustees kept an open mind during the decision making process with regards to the expulsion / indefinite suspension meeting. X v Bovey ​
[2014] NZHC 1103, May 22, 2014, McKenzie J at para [20] CREEDNZ Inc. v Governor General [​
1981] 1 NZLR 172 (CA) at pg 194 ln 23 ­ 27 2.0 The hair rule at St Paulus College for Boys was lawful and the disciplinary action taken against the appellant was lawful. 2.1 The hair rule at St Paulus College for Boys is sufficiently certain to be lawful.
Battison v Melloy ​
[2014] NZAR 927 (should be overruled) at para [88] 2.2 That the Principal of St Paulus College for Boys followed the correct process as outlined in the Act and the suspension process was done lawfully. Education Act 1989 s17(1)(a) Edwards v Onehunga High School Board and Another ​
[1974] 2 NZLR 238 (CA) at pg 245 ln 6 2.3 That the Board of Trustees of St Paulus College for Boys followed the correct process as outlined in the Act and the expulsion process was done lawfully. Education Act 1989 s17(1)(c) 2.4 ​
There is sufficient evidence of gross misconduct by Duncan Smith which was a harmful and dangerous example to other students. 2.4.1 The suspension could also have been made and upheld on the ground that it was continual disobedience which was a harmful and dangerous example to other students at the school. Education Act 1989 s17(1)(a) M v S​
[2003] NZAR 705 (HC) Signature Counsel for the First and Second Respondents