Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2008]JRC034

royal court

(Samedi Division)

4^th March 2008

Before     :		J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Le Brocq, and Newcombe.
Between	The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture		Plaintiff
And	NM		Defendant

HM Solicitor General for the Plaintiff.

The Defendant appeared in person.

judgment

the COMMISSIONER:

1.        The plaintiff has issued proceedings by way of Order of Justice against the defendant seeking interim and permanent injunctions.  The matter was first returned before the Court on 11^th February, 2008, when, after an inter partes hearing, the Court imposed the interim injunctions pending the hearing of the substantive action.  The Court indicated that it wished to give its reasons in writing which we now do.

2.        The interim injunctions restrain the defendant from going on to any part of a primary school in Jersey ("the school") for any purpose and from harming, harassing, following or otherwise interfering with the headmistress and deputy headmistress of the school, or any other person employed by the plaintiff at the school, or asking, requesting, or conspiring with a third person to do so.  A power of arrest was imposed for a period of six months.

3.        In reciting the background to this case, it is important to note that at the hearing on 11^th February, 2008, the Court did not hear any witnesses and made no findings as to fact.  The Court had before it an affidavit sworn by the headmistress and heard the submissions of the Solicitor General, representing the plaintiff, and the defendant, who appeared in person.  In deciding to grant the interim injunctions, the Court bore in mind the guidelines set out in the case of T A Picot (CI) Limited and Ors v Creative Windows & Conservatory Co. Limited and Ors [1997] JLR N 12A.

4.        The defendant has two children - a son who is currently aged fourteen, who left the school at the end of the 2005 academic year and a daughter, who is currently aged seven, who is a pupil at the school.

5.        On 13^th June, 2005, there was an incident at the school involving the defendant's son and another boy, which was investigated internally.  The report showed that the defendant encouraged and/or permitted his son to hit the other child.  As a result of the incident, the defendant's son was suspended from the school for three days.  The defendant complained to the Education Department and the matter was investigated by the principal educational psychologist, who concluded that the matter had been dealt with appropriately.

6.        The defendant informed us that his son had been subjected to a campaign of bullying by other children.  He admitted encouraging his son to hit the other boy in self defence, but it was only because he was at the end of his tether and in desperation as to how to protect his son.  Following the incident, the police had been called to his home, much to his family's distress.  His son was too afraid to return to school the next day but the defendant encouraged him to do so, having been assured by the school that he would not be punished.  Promising his son that this was the position, he sent him to school, only for him to return an hour later, having been suspended.  Their side of the incident had not been represented in the internal report and the principal educational psychologist had not troubled even to interview his son or the other boy involved.

7.        It was not our task to investigate and reach any conclusions in relation to this incident or its history, but it is clear that the defendant was deeply dissatisfied with the way he and his son had been treated by the school and was determined to seek redress.  It is the manner in which he has sought to do so that has given rise to these proceedings.

8.        The plaintiff alleges that following this incident, the defendant has acted in an aggressive, offensive and unacceptable manner.  We will not set out here the particulars of that alleged conduct involving the headmistress and the deputy headmistress at the school, but we took the defendant through them and it was clear that in the main, he accepts the incidents took place, although he would say that they have been exaggerated and that he was not aggressive or intimidating.  He did, however, volunteer that in one of the incidents, the headmistress had told him he was being very aggressive.  What he did not dispute in any way was that he had created websites (now closed) on which he has posted allegations against a number of persons connected with the Education Department and the school, in particular the headmistress.  The first website was headed "Mrs [ name of headmistress] child abuser" and contains the following, inter alia:-

"The fact is Mrs [ name of headmistress] at [name of school] abused my child and the Education Sport and Culture covered it up".

This was the theme of the remaining sites (although couched more in terms of allegations than direct accusations) one of which included a photograph of the headmistress.

9.        In her affidavit, the headmistress alleges that the defendant has threatened to make a video of the plaintiff, Senator Walker and herself, and to appear in the plaintiff's garden.  She has been the subject of rumours that she has been accused of sexual abuse.  She says that the defendant's campaign has upset her very much, to the point that it is having a prejudicial impact on the way in which she is able to carry out her duties as head teacher.  That distress was visible to us in Court.  The effect on the school has been such that the Leadership and Management Team wrote to the Education Department on 19^th October, 2007 expressing their full support for the leadership of the school at both a professional and personal level and expressing the feeling that the commitment, drive and dedication of the headmistress and deputy headmistress were being compromised "by the actions of a lone parent". They urged that the implications of this and the effect that this individual was having on the school community should be considered urgently.  The letter was signed voluntarily by the staff.

10.      The defendant told us that these proceedings were a smokescreen aimed at covering up the truth about his son.  Furthermore, he said it was the plaintiff's intention to cause him to remove his daughter from the school.  The interim injunctions would affect his daughter because it would deprive her of the normal contact between father and daughter at school events and would single her out as the only pupil whose father was not permitted on the premises.

11.      The Solicitor General made the point in response that in bringing these proceedings in open court, the plaintiff can hardly be accused of a "cover-up".  She also made it clear that whilst the interim injunctions would prevent the defendant from attending at the school, the plaintiff has offered to make arrangements for parental consultation to take place in an alternative location.  The defendant's wife is not of course subject to any restrictions.

12.      We had no doubt at all that the plaintiff was under a duty to bring these proceedings and is entitled to the imposition of the interim injunctions in order to protect the headmistress and the deputy headmistress and to ensure the proper functioning of the school.  The interim injunctions were therefore granted.

13.      Whilst the trial of these allegations has yet to take place, there is very strong prima facie evidence that the defendant has embarked upon a campaign of harassment and bullying, and in particular cyber bullying, of the headmistress and deputy headmistress.  We can understand that when it comes to one's children, emotions can run very high, particularly where we may feel that our children are being bullied and the school is not doing enough to protect our children.  In saying this, we are not implying that we think the defendant's son was being bullied or that the school was not doing enough to protect him (we cannot and do not make any findings in this respect) but the defendant clearly feels that this was the case.  What is quite unacceptable is the means by which the defendant has sought to seek redress for the injustices he perceives he and his son have suffered.  Even on the case as submitted to us by the defendant, there are simply no grounds whatsoever for accusing the headmistress of personally abusing his child.  "Child abuse" is a term which is often associated with sexual assaults, as evidenced by the rumours to which to the headmistress says she has been subjected, but if not sexual, it connotes cruel or violent conduct.  There is nothing which the defendant has told us which, if true, would remotely justify the making of such an allegation against the headmistress.  In our view any repetition of such an allegation, whether expressly or by implication, could well constitute the harming or harassment of the headmistress (or deputy headmistress) and therefore a breach of the interim injunctions we have imposed.

14.      As indicated at the hearing, the Court has a concern in relation to the defendant's daughter which it feels it should express for her sake.  The defendant informed us that his daughter is very happy at the school, but that as a result of these proceedings, he feels he has no alternative but to remove her.  We do not doubt the strong feelings that the defendant has in relation to the incident involving his son and we respect his right to seek redress for any injustices he perceives to have taken place, provided that he does so appropriately, without the kind of conduct described above and provided that he is satisfied that it really is in the interests of his son (who has now moved on to secondary school) to do so.  However, as we put it to the defendant in Court, and as he readily acknowledged, he must weigh in the balance the interests of his daughter, who he assures us is not aware and will not be made aware of these matters at least until she leaves the school.  If the defendant would permit us to express a view, it is that it would be very unfortunate, if not wrong, for the now historic issues over his son to adversely affect his daughter's education by her being removed from the school in which she would appear to be thriving.  We hope very much that this will not happen.

Authorities

T A Picot (CI) Limited and Ors v Creative Windows & Conservatory Co Limited and Ors [1997] JLR N 12A.