parents challenge school in court over punishment

[Jono]

there is case that has recently got a bit of media attention here in new zealand.

two st bedes college (private school in christchurch, nz) students jordan kennedy (17) and jack bell (16) were caught riding the baggage conveyor into a secure area in auckland domestic airport.

the boys were given formal warnings by police and aviation security. they were in auckland to compete in a rowing regatta.

the principal banned them from competing. the boys parents hired lawyers and sought a high court injunction to allow them to compete.

the judge ruled in the parents favour because the coach was not present when the incident happened, the boys were not interviewed and the school did not gather information to assess whether punishment was in proportion to alleged misbehaviour.

supposedly this injunction cost the parents $20,000. the case divided the country with many favouring the school arguing the parents did their boys more harm.

even if my mum could afford to lawyer up she wouldnt of. when i got kicked out of drama camp last year. she picked me up, took me home and tanned my butt, assigned me chores and sent me to my grandparents for the rest of the holidays.

part of the parents argument was that if the boys did not compete they would not qualify for nationals. turns out this was not entirely true as they could be nominated for nationals prior the the regatta. they could be selected for nationals if the placed well in the regatta. neither boy made it to nationals

here are some articles:

Rowing legal action 'not taken lightly'

'If you don't like something, you lawyer up' - Teachers fear St Bede's rowing ban row sets 'dangerous precedent'

[Michael J]

Why would a 16 and 17 year old be riding a baggage conveyor belt in a airport? That seems childish and stupid to me.
I agree with Jono. I don't think the parents should have fought it. Sometimes kids have to realize that there behavior can have real-life serious unpleasant consequences.
I don't think it was worth $20,000. Especially since they didn't make nationals. I wonder what the parents faces looked like when they realized they had basically wasted $20,000. Haha.

[DarkRiver]

Jono thanks for sharing this. I'm appalled by parents behavior and wish the Judge had sided with the school. I'm not surprised by the decision however. I recall a 60 Minutes broadcast some years ago where three teens had caused a serious accident, paralyzing the driver of the that was involved. The judge gave the teens jail time but said that they could start their sentences _after_ the football season ended so that their school team wouldn't lose three of their best players.

Back back to this story, I have the same question as Mike, what were they doing riding the baggage conveyor? I think that the parents are only teaching their children tht if you got money you can get away with things... definitely not a healthy leson.

[Jono]

im not surprised that the judge ruled in favour of the parents as she only had limited time to make her ruling (like an hour and half). she only had to rule that there was a possibility that there was a case to answer. although i think punishment fit the crime i would agree that the school did not follow correct process and thats what the judge ruled on.

today the news reported that the school had hired a lawyer from chapman tripp (which is one of the leading law firms in new zealand). the boys will probably receive another punishment which will probably be negotiated by lawyers.

i do hope the parents are still punishing their sons separately because this isnt going to do a 16-17 year olds ego any good - 'my parents took my school to court and won, how cool i am' mentality.

unfortunately both boys are going to suffer down the track as this has played out in the media and most employers do reference checks and still five years from now you write their names in google. all these news articles are going to come up. when the parents took the school to court they tried to get name suppression but judge ruled against that.