Judge: Student caught cheating can continue to challenge punishment

Justice Devindra Rampersad. -

A HIGH COURT JUDGE has ruled that a student disciplined by ASJA Girls’ College, San Fernando, can continue her legal challenge over the school’s decision to impose severe penalties after she was found with pieces of paper with notes during a geography exam in 2024.

Justice Devindra Rampersad dismissed an application by the school’s acting principal, the college, and its education board to set aside permission for judicial review. He found the case raised questions of fairness, proportionality, and public accountability under the Education Act and the National School Code of Conduct (NSCC).

Following a disciplinary meeting, the school imposed strict penalties and the punishment included awarding zero marks for all remaining exams that term and marking her permanent record with a “bad mark” and the comment “caught cheating in an exam.”

The student, then 12, argued that the penalties were disproportionate, unfair, and made without proper notice or disclosure of evidence. Her lawyer Sunil Gopaul-Gosine argued the sanctions were excessive, violated the Education Act and the Ministry of Education’s Code of Conduct, and the 1960 Concordat. He also argued that the penalties, including a note on her cumulative card, could harm her reputation, academic progress and eligibility for leadership roles.

Attorneys for the school countered that the disciplinary action followed the student handbook and was explained to her father at a disciplinary conference. They claimed he was shown the offending notes and signed both the discipline report and cumulative record card. The school also argued that the case should not be subject to judicial review because the decisions were not public in nature and alleged the student failed to disclose all facts when applying for leave to file the claim.

Justice Rampersad found there were sufficient grounds for the case to proceed.

In his ruling, Justice Rampersad noted that discipline in schools operated within a framework of public law. He referred to the Education Act, which places ultimate responsibility for education under the Ministry of Education, and the NSCC, which requires fair, age-appropriate, and proportionate consequences for infractions. He also referenced Trinidad and Tobago’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which recognises a child’s right to education and fair treatment.

The judge noted that any act designed to alter or misrepresent a student’s actual performance, such as marking exams “zero” when the student was allowed to write them, may conflict with the NSCC’s integrity rules. He stressed that public schools perform a national function and that their disciplinary decisions must align with legislation, policy, and the principles of natural justice.

“The court is therefore satisfied that the process of the implementation of disciplinary steps in relation to cheating as in the circumstances of the case before this court is subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Act and it contains a sufficient public law element to allow the court to consider the same under the established judicial review principles.”

In deciding the case, the judge said, “There is no doubt in the court’s mind that there are contracts that are entered into between a school and parents which are not subject to judicial review as they do not have any public law function or element.

“However, the core function of the school is to provide an education which is managed under the Act by the minister, who designates and, in essence, delegates certain functions to the principal and the school as set out above.

“That, however, is a duty which falls on the State ultimately and is recognised internationally under the UNCRC which, although it has been signed and ratified by the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, does not form part of the active law of the Republic.

“The Act and the NSCC, however, clearly provide the framework within which any stakeholder operates, including the Board, the principal and the student,” the judge said.

He added, “There is therefore a public interest and a public function in the activities of the principal in establishing, communicating, formulating and ensuring consistency in implementing school expectations, guidelines, rules and regulations in alignment with national policy and guidelines from the Ministry of Education.

“The court has no doubt that the instilling of religious principles, in this case robust Islamic principles, is within the purview of the school. There is no doubt either that there is a cry in society for the establishment of strong young persons founded on firm principles, in this case, based on a strong religious belief.

“However where those principles intersect with the NSCC, then the court must look at the legislative framework and its intent which enables public schools to operate.”

Former attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, Roger Kawalsingh, Ashley Roopchansingh and Reshard Khan represented the school and its board.