Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

School offers pupil $10,000 over drug claim
www.stuff.nz ^ | 8.31.03 | RACHEL GRUNWELL

Posted on 08/31/2003 5:25:21 PM PDT by freepatriot32

An intermediate school has secretly offered a 12-year-old boy and his family more than $10,000 compensation after accusing him of smoking and supplying cannabis during school time and subsequently expelling him.

A source said the boy and his family had been devastated by the allegations made by Auckland's Hibiscus Coast Intermediate school.

The boy had lost confidence, felt ostracised and believed word was out in the community he was a drug seller.

"He was scarred by the allegations and being labelled a drug dealer has humiliated the family," said the source.

"The family feel there was a siege mentality by the school to get rid of this kid and make an example of him."

However, school principal Carl Becker said the school treated the boy absolutely fairly and justly. He was expelled following "a very fair and just process".

"The board made a decision based on evidence from a range of sources.

"The evidence was robust. That's all I can really say," said Becker.

Board chairwoman Trish Webster said: "I'm happy with the way the school handled the situation."

When asked why the school recently offered the boy compensation, Becker said: "I'm not prepared to comment on that. It would be inappropriate. Only my lawyer would comment on that."

He would not comment further without seeking legal advice and Webster also said she could say nothing more as the matter was ongoing.

It is understood the board has apologised to the family for any hurt it caused to the boy and offered between $10,000 and $20,000 compensation since expelling him in December.

The family could not be reached for comment. But it is understood they have been so aggrieved about what happened they refused to take the cash settlement and may take a civil court case against the school.

Becker said it would be unfortunate for the boy if the case went to court.

It is understood the family is claiming the school breached the boy's rights under the Bill of Rights Act.

The boy missed only a few weeks of school at the end of last year following the accusations. He is now at high school and has just turned 13.

It is understood the boy was suspended in November after a school staff member alleged they smelt cannabis on his school bag.

In December, the board held a meeting and after considering the evidence, the boy was expelled, stating he had sold drugs in school grounds in school time and was a danger to other pupils. The school told the family it had to provide a safe environment for students.

However, part of the alleged evidence was that the boy possessed a pipe for smoking cannabis. This was found later not to be the case.

The school also allegedly breached the boy's rights by not asking him if they could search his school bag.

No money was found on the boy - despite an allegation he sold marijuana that morning.

It is believed the boy's only error of judgement was agreeing to keep marijuana on the day for another student, which was confirmed by the other pupil.

The family was also believed to be upset there was a disparity of treatment between other alleged offending students as the boy was the only one to be expelled.

In May, it is understood the school apologised for being unfair to the boy and accepted it carried out an invalid investigation.

Both sides have since been unable to resolve the fallout.

Email rachel.grunwell@star-times.co.nz


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 000; 10; claim; drug; offers; over; pupil; school; wodlist
this is the same country that expelled a boy forever for smoking a joint off school grounds but let 4 boys that gang raped a 13 year old girl in the hallway stay in school they werent even arrested if i rember the case right

School defends 'disparate' decisions(gang rape versus smoking marijuana)

1 posted on 08/31/2003 5:25:22 PM PDT by freepatriot32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list; jmc813
PING
2 posted on 08/31/2003 5:27:43 PM PDT by freepatriot32 (today it was the victory act tomorrow its victory coffee, victory cigarettes...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
When asked why the school recently offered the boy compensation, Becker said: "I'm not prepared to comment on that. It would be inappropriate. Only my lawyer would comment on that."

Perhaps Principal Becker was simply trying to score $10K of top-quality weed.

3 posted on 08/31/2003 5:29:03 PM PDT by Sloth ("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
A little advice for the boy's family. You can own the school district. Don't settle.
4 posted on 08/31/2003 5:31:04 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
It is believed the boy's only error of judgement was agreeing to keep marijuana on the day for another student, which was confirmed by the other pupil.

I'm thinking, regardless of the false accusations, this statement hangs the kid. Why the school is trying to settle is beyond me.
5 posted on 08/31/2003 5:45:40 PM PDT by stylin19a (is it vietnam yet ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
There's a difference between possession and sales.

6 posted on 08/31/2003 6:00:06 PM PDT by cryptical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
BUT...

if the part is true:It is believed the boy's only error of judgement was agreeing to keep marijuana on the day for another student, which was confirmed by the other pupil. Then he likely committed a felony - possesion of a controlled substance. If he was "holding" it for another student, he technically had intent to deliver.

This goes beyond "error of judgement". If the kid was in posession of narcotics, the school's actions not only were correct, but also followed the law in most states....

The suspicious part is - why the payoff offer?

7 posted on 08/31/2003 7:38:24 PM PDT by TheBattman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
"The evidence was robust. That's all I can really say," said Becker.

If the evidence was "robust" the school wouldn't have offered an apology and offered a payoff.

However, part of the alleged evidence was that the boy possessed a pipe for smoking cannabis. This was found later not to be the case.

Kid's got a pipe and magically now he didn't.

In May, it is understood the school apologised for being unfair to the boy and accepted it carried out an invalid investigation.

Apologised for be unfair to the boy. They just signed their own check for the payoff.

Invalid investigation? What the he!! is that?
We searched him when we shouldn't have?

8 posted on 08/31/2003 7:58:21 PM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
That being said, if the kid is not intelligent enough to tell his compadre to keep his own weed he probably deserves to get busted.
9 posted on 08/31/2003 7:59:50 PM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
An intermediate school has secretly offered a 12-year-old boy and his family more than $10,000 compensation after accusing him of smoking and supplying cannabis during school time and subsequently expelling him.

A source said the boy and his family had been devastated by the allegations made by Auckland's Hibiscus Coast Intermediate school. The boy had lost confidence, felt ostracised and believed word was out in the community he was a drug seller.

"He was scarred by the allegations and being labelled a drug dealer has humiliated the family," said the source.  "The family feel there was a siege mentality by the school to get rid of this kid and make an example of him."

However, school principal Carl Becker said the school treated the boy absolutely fairly and justly (which is why they are now bribing him with 10k????). He was expelled following "a very fair and just process".

"The board made a decision based on evidence from a range of sources. (and they are....??)

"The evidence was robust. That's all I can really say," said Becker.

Board chairwoman Trish Webster said: "I'm happy with the way the school handled the situation."

When asked why the school recently offered the boy compensation, Becker said: "I'm not prepared to comment on that. It would be inappropriate. Only my lawyer would comment on that."

He would not comment further without seeking legal advice and Webster also said she could say nothing more as the matter was ongoing.

It is understood the board has apologised to the family for any hurt it caused to the boy and offered between $10,000 and $20,000 compensation since expelling him in December.

The family could not be reached for comment. But it is understood they have been so aggrieved about what happened they refused to take the cash settlement and may take a civil court case against the school.

Becker said it would be unfortunate for the boy if the case went to court.

It is understood the family is claiming the school breached the boy's rights under the Bill of Rights Act.

The boy missed only a few weeks of school at the end of last year following the accusations. He is now at high school and has just turned 13.

It is understood the boy was suspended in November after a school staff member alleged they smelt cannabis on his school bag.

In December, the board held a meeting and after considering the evidence, the boy was expelled, stating he had sold drugs in school grounds in school time and was a danger to other pupils. The school told the family it had to provide a safe environment for students.

However, part of the alleged evidence was that the boy possessed a pipe for smoking cannabis. This was found later not to be the case.

The school also allegedly breached the boy's rights by not asking him if they could search his school bag.

No money was found on the boy - despite an allegation he sold marijuana that morning.

It is believed the boy's only error of judgement was agreeing to keep marijuana on the day for another student, which was confirmed by the other pupil.(NOT BY THE ACCUSED)

The family was also believed to be upset there was a disparity of treatment between other alleged offending students as the boy was the only one to be expelled.  (the only "statement" in the entire article)

In May, it is understood the school apologised for being unfair to the boy and accepted it carried out an invalid investigation.

Both sides have since been unable to resolve the fallout.

 

Narry a single clear statement in the entire bit.   There is sooooo much cya here these folks have just gotta be invisible.  PC crowd would be DAMN proud to have more writers like this one.

Im going with the kid on this one, he has admitted to nothing, the best evidence they got is another kids word that he kept the cnbs for him, which of course no one actually saw.

I'd ask for 250,00.00, just to see them go pale.....  then again I AM a Texan.

10 posted on 08/31/2003 11:48:17 PM PDT by TLI (...........ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
I agree. I'm reading the article and thinking that they can get more than $10,000 -- maybe an entire college education.

Then I came to the part about actually finding the marijuana in his backpack and his claim that he was "holding" it for another student.

I say kick him out for either the marijuana possession or stupidity.

11 posted on 09/01/2003 6:35:34 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; Bill D. Berger; ..
WOD Ping
12 posted on 09/01/2003 6:46:11 AM PDT by jmc813 (Check out the FR Big Brother 4 thread! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/943368/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson