The parents of a former student of a non-government Sydney school (School) have asked the New South Wales Supreme Court to invalidate the School’s decision to expel the student. The School gave the parents a choice between voluntarily removing their daughter from the School or expulsion, a choice which the parents allege was based on a flawed and intimidating investigation. They are seeking damages based on the costs of moving their child to a new school and counselling.

The matter is still in Court.

The investigation and expulsion

The Australian reports that the student was asked to leave the School following an investigation into an alleged bullying incident during a Year 8 camp. Following the incident, the student was questioned by teachers whilst at the camp, which the parents allege was an intimidating environment for the student. The parents were not notified of the incident at the time.

Two weeks later, the student’s father alleges that he was contacted by phone by the deputy principal and told that his daughter had been accused of bullying, harassment and physical assault. The student’s parents have told the Court that the investigation failed to give their daughter the proper opportunity to respond to the allegations, and so the decision to either allow the student to leave the School voluntarily or face expulsion was fundamentally flawed. They also argue that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, even if the claims of the School are fully substantiated.

The parents chose to withdraw the student from the School.

Managing investigations in schools

Schools should have in place clear policies and procedures that can help manage sensitive, interpersonal disputes. These policies should be fully implemented in school life and subject to ongoing review to ensure continuous improvement. Examples of the types of policies that could apply to the circumstances of the case include:

• a bullying policy for students;
• complaints handling procedures for parents;
• a student discipline policy; and
• staff HR procedures including training to understand the policies and procedures which staff must understand and administer in a fair and non-judgmental manner.

In their application to the Supreme Court, the parents were highly critical of the investigation, arguing that their daughter’s guilt was prejudged by the School and that the School failed to take her wellbeing into account when investigating the incident and coming to its decision. Even if the Court finds that there were no problems with the investigation process, the parents’ decision to challenge the School’s decision in Court has attracted media attention and raised questions about the effectiveness of the School’s processes.

When investigating serious matters such as this alleged bullying incident, schools should have a clear procedure that is effectively communicated to all parties involved. Investigations should be fair, and use a predetermined procedure to ensure that the investigation must apply procedural fairness at every stage, to ensure an unbiased approach in investigating sensitive incidents. This means that all parties should be given an opportunity to present their views in response to the allegations and should be informed of the possible outcomes in advance. Where possible, the reasons for the ultimate decision should be communicated to the affected parties. Thorough records should be kept in order to demonstrate compliance with the school’s policy. Our earlier article discussed the importance of procedural fairness in school disciplinary matters: A row at the regatta.

Communication is a vital part of the investigation process. These processes exist to resolve problems in an equitable and effective manner, which requires involved parties to accept the ultimate decision of the school. If there has been a breakdown in communication, it is more likely that parties will be dissatisfied with the final result. This can lead to public complaints and criticisms of the process, which can cause reputational damage to the school. In extreme circumstances it can lead to litigation which potentially causes both reputational and financial damage to the school.

The case is scheduled to return to court in May.