1
2015 Secondary Schools' Mooting Competition
Problem Factual Scenario
Mr Robert Quilliams is the principal of St Paulus College for Boys which is a state secondary school
for boys. There are approximately 650 students at the school. Mr Quilliams has been the principal
of the school for ten years. He is a highly regarded principal with a very good knowledge of the laws
and procedures required to be followed in respect of the students of his school.
His philosophy regarding school age boys is that they respond well to rules and boundaries and on
that basis regards the following of the school rules to be crucial to the well-being of and in the best
interests of all the school pupils that attend his school.
Duncan Smith is a pupil of St Paulus College for Boys. He is 17 years of age and is currently in Year 13
– his final year at high school. He has been at St Paulus College since Year 9. Until now, during his
time at school he has been an exemplary student excelling in both academic and sporting pursuits.
He is a prefect and represents the school in the first 15 Rugby team. Many of the younger boys look
up to him as a role model – both Duncan and Mr Quilliams are aware of this. Until now, Duncan has
taken that responsibility seriously and set a very good example.
Unfortunately, over the last two months, Duncan has had a difficult time. Two months ago his
parents announced their separation which came as a shock to Duncan. The separation was handled
by his parents as sensitively and carefully as possible but it did little to reassure Duncan. Shortly after
the separation, his father then told him he was going through a gender transition with the intention
of changing his sex to a woman. This sent Duncan into a very anxious and angry state.
His parents were careful to provide Duncan with counselling immediately after the two
announcements which seemed to help. After a month or so, it appeared that Duncan accepted the
situation and he seemed to go back to his usual self.
Duncan is living with his mother but hasn’t seen his father since the announcement about the
gender transition as he doesn’t feel ready to deal with it.
Since the separation of his parents, Duncan told his mother he is not cutting his hair because he is
sick of following the masses and wants to be seen as an individual. He said rules are only guidelines
and what you learn is more important than how you look.
At St Paulus College for Boys the school rule for hair, which was made under s.72 of the Education
Act 1989, provides:
“Hair must be short, tidy and of natural colour. Hair must be off the collar and out of the eyes.”
For the last four weeks, Duncan’s hair has been well below his collar, comes past his eyes and is
untidy and unbrushed. He has also been using hair product to make his hair stand on end as a
solution to it being well below his collar and in his eyes.
About 70 - 80 of the younger boys started to wear their hair in the same way.
Over the last three weeks Mr Quilliams has made announcements at each weekly assembly of the
whole school, which takes place on a Monday morning, reminding the boys of the rule regarding
2
hair, stating it clearly and announcing a warning that hair which exceeded the permitted length
would have to be cut.
Most of the boys complied. A few did not and these were then spoken to by the principal
individually (including Duncan Smith). All of the boys spoken to, except Duncan, complied with the
instruction and had their hair cut to comply with the school rule.
Two days after being spoken to by the prinicipal, Duncan posted a video on Youtube. The video
showed Duncan in his school uniform. Duncan appeared to be under the influence of either alcohol
or drugs. He was smoking a roll your own cigarette. In his video he announced what school he
attended and criticised the “Nazis” at his school that were trying to force him into their regime by
making him cut his hair. He encouraged all school boys to grow their hair in protest and to stand up
to the bullying tactics of schools everywhere. He was angry and used expletives during his speech.
After being advised of the video, Mr Quilliams watched it and requested a meeting with Duncan. He
advised Duncan to bring one or both of his parents to the meeting.
Duncan turned up to the meeting but without either parent. He told Mr Quilliams his mother was
out of town and he didn’t know how to contact his father. Mr Quilliams asked Duncan if he wanted
anyone else present. Duncan replied “I couldn’t give a toss – I can deal with this myself”.
Mr Quilliams explained to Duncan that he was extremely concerned about the video, and Duncan’s
prior behaviour. He said that it set a harmful and dangerous example to the other students at the
school. He went on to say that there had been major disruption in the school that morning when a
group of younger Year 10 boys refused to comply with instructions given by a teacher. When
challenged the boys told the teacher they were doing “what the prefect told them to do”. He also
stated that he believed that Duncan was under the influence of either drugs and/or alcohol at the
time he made the video.
Duncan was monosyllabic and unco-operative during the meeting with Mr Quilliams. On several
occasions, Mr Quilliams asked Duncan if he wanted to make any comment about anything he had
said. He also invited Duncan to interrupt him if he disagreed with any statement Mr Quilliams made
to him. Duncan told Mr Quilliams that he was simply expressing his opinion as s.14 of the New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 allows him to do. Mr Quilliams replied “I accept that you are entitled
to your opinion, but your video was inciting a breach of the peace and encouraging other boys to
break school rules. Rules are there for a purpose and disobeying them sets a harmful and
dangerous example to others. It is defying authority and undermines the discipline required to
manage a large group of young boys in a school. I am also concerned that you had consumed either
drugs or alcohol before you made the video”.
Duncan replied “Yeah, I had drunk a couple of bourbons and was having a toke on a rollie – but it
was out of school time so what are you going to do about it?”
Mr Quilliams didn’t react to that statement and at the end of the interview, Mr Quilliams gave
Duncan two days to provide a written apology and retraction of what was said in the video as well as
getting a hair cut that complied with the school rules.
3
Before the two days had elapsed, Mr Quilliams managed to get hold of Duncan’s mother and
explained what had happened. He also said to her that “Duncan admits he had been drinking
alcohol and smoking when he made that video. Any boys previously caught drinking alcohol whilst
in school uniform have always been suspended as we have a no tolerance policy on students caught
with alcohol and/or drugs. You should know this is a possibility.” Duncan’s mother replied “Give the
boy a break – he is just being a teenager”.
That same afternoon Duncan’s mother came to school to see his Dean. While she was waiting to see
him, the deputy principal and the Chairperson of the School Trust Board were walking past but
didn’t see her. She heard the deputy principal say “That boy Duncan is in a whole lot of trouble, I
don’t know what his problem is but he won’t be here for much longer”. The Chairperson replied
“Yes I have been briefed by Mr Quilliams. It seems a shame to suspend him but our hands are tied.”
Duncan’s mother left without seeing the Dean.
When the two days were up, Duncan was once again called to Mr Quilliams’ office. When asked
about his written apology and the fact that his hair still did not comply with the rules, Duncan said
“Stuff you, you old loser” and gave Mr Quilliams the fingers. Mr Quilliams said to Duncan “You have
really let the school down with your appalling behaviour over the past few weeks. You know we
have a zero policy about drugs and alcohol and your hair still breaches the rules. You have also been
inciting the other students to behave badly. Your behaviour amounts to gross misconduct and is a
harmful and dangerous example to the other students at the school and on that basis I am
suspending you indefinitely starting immediately. Please leave the school grounds.” Duncan left the
school.
Mr Quilliams then organised an urgent meeting with the Board of Trustees to deal with the
suspension of Duncan with a view to having him suspended indefinitely from school. He advised
Duncan’s parents of the date of the meeting. Duncan and his mother attended the meeting. The
meeting was difficult and tense. At one stage Duncan’s mother said loudly in an angry voice “I don’t
even know why we are having this meeting, you have all made up your minds so why don’t you just
come clean and say you don’t want my boy here any more?” The Chairperson replied “I understand
your frustration but when students do certain things, sometimes we have no option but to
suspend.” Duncan’s mother then stood up and said “and all this because he won’t have a haircut –
you are all just a bunch of hooray henry’s and I don’t trust you”. She then left the room with
Duncan.
The meeting continued and the Board received a report from Mr Quilliams and some discussion
ensued. At the end of the discussion it was decided to suspend Duncan indefinitely and that was put
into place with both parents being informed immediately after the meeting.
Immediately after the notice was received by Duncan’s mother, she called a friend of hers who was a
practising lawyer. They agreed that they should apply to court for a judicial review to challenge the
indefinite suspension.
Duncan’s mother then made an application as Duncan’s Litigation Guardian for a judicial review in
the High Court seeking a declaration that the decisions to suspend indefinitely by both the principal
and the Board of Trustees were invalid and of no effect on the following grounds:
4
1. That the school’s rule about hair was unlawful and the disciplinary action taken against Duncan
was unlawful.
2. That in the case of both the decisions, that both the principal and the Board of Trustees
respectively had predetermined the outcome.
The High Court heard the application and judgment was given. The judgment provided, inter alia,
that given the facts of the case:
1. The school rule about hair made pursuant to s.72 Education Act 1989 was lawful, and further
that the disciplinary action taken against Duncan was conducted in a procedurally fair manner and in
accordance with the statutory requirements and was therefore lawful.
2. That neither the principal or the Board of Trustees had predetermined the outcome of their
decisions and further that the correct legal and procedural requirements were met.
On the basis of the above findings, the High Court found in favour of the defendants (the principal
and the Board of Trustees) and the indefinite suspension stands.
Duncan’s mother was very unhappy with the decision of the High Court and applied for leave to
appeal to the Moot Supreme Court on a public interest basis. That application was granted and
Duncan’s mother is now appealing, as Duncan’s litigation guardian, to the Moot Supreme Court
seeking the overturning of the High Court decision on the original two grounds, that is:
1. That the school’s rule about hair was unlawful and the disciplinary action taken against Duncan
was unlawful.
2. That in the case of both the decisions, that both the principal and the Board of Trustees
respectively had predetermined the outcome.
NB Although the next Court up from the High Court is the Court of Appeal, on occasions an
application is made for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (New Zealand’s highest court) when it
can be shown that it is a point of law that has high public interest and ramifications. This means that
any decision made by the Supreme Court about that particular case must be followed by all inferior
courts, including the Court of Appeal and the High Court.
5
RELEVANT AUTHORITIES
Statutory Materials
Education Act 1989 (as at 01 December 2014): ss3, 13, 14, 17, 17A, 17B & 72
Education (Stand-down, Suspension, Exclusion, and Expulsion) Rules 1999
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (as at 01 July 2013): s14
NB Legislation is free to access and has no copyright. The official website for New Zealand
legislation is: http://www.legislation.govt.nz. You can locate and copy any legislation from there.
Case Law
Lawfulness of rules and/or disciplinary action
Battison v Melloy [2014] NZAR 927
M v S [2003] NZAR 705 (HC)
Edwards v Onehunga High School Board and Another [1974] 2 NZLR 238 (CA)
Bias by predetermination
CREEDNZ v Governor-General [1981] 1 NZLR 172 (CA)
X v Bovey [2014] NZHC 1103, May 22, 2014, McKenzie J.
NB Relevant cases are provided to all competitors.