SCHOOL BULLYING & RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: THE LEGAL ISSUES FOR GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

SCHOOL BULLYING & RESTORATIVE JUSTICE:

THE LEGAL ISSUES FOR GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

Education has for its object the formation of character.

I INTRODUCTION

Childhood and schooling is recognized as a crucial period in a person’s life for the ‘formation of character’, with both positive and negative experiences influencing a child’s development well into adult life. School bullying is now recognized as one of the most potentially harmful experiences children may face during this highly vulnerable period.

Traditionally, bullying in schools (and society in general) was ignored, condoned or even encouraged, with little support or management for victims and bullies. In the 1970’s momentum gathered within education for a more proactive approach to school bullying, in response to a greater understanding of its effects and also the threat of detrimental civil action against the schools by victims of bullies. However, schools and staff largely adopted punitive methods to manage incidents of school bullying, including suspension and expulsion which

are supported legislatively in all Australian jurisdictions except South Australia.

Increasingly, restorative practices have been recognized as providing a more effective solution to the problem of bullying in schools, but the transition from a punitive to non-punitive paradigm faces a number of legal (and social) barriers to effective implementation, particularly in the rapidly advancing age of digital technology which has witnessed the emergence of ‘cyber bullying’.

This paper will examine the legal issues, and identify key legal considerations regarding the application of restorative practices within government schools.

II THE PROBLEM OF SCHOOL BULLYING

Bullying is defined as ‘repeated oppression, psychological or physical, of a less powerful person, by a more powerful person or group of persons.’ The harm caused by both school and workplace bullying is staggering, not only in psychological terms, which can lead to disruption to learning, anxiety, depression, suicide and even murder, but also in economic terms, through lost productivity, absenteeism and the payment of monetary compensation such

as that provided by the various jurisdictional WorkCover schemes. The relationship between school bullying and workplace bullying is only now becoming fully understood, with research evidence supporting the premise that children who behave as bullies during their school years later grow up to be dysfunctional and in many cases, bullies in the workplace.

School years are recognized as a highly formative period for a person’s character, therefore it is crucial to effectively address bullying behaviour and vulnerabilities during these early stages of life, to not only protect children throughout school, but to also provide them with sound personality traits to protect them in their adult life. The importance of effectively managing bullying in the school place is important because, negation of such behaviour will provide both short, medium and long term benefits to the individuals, the school and society as a whole.

III CURRENT LEGISLATIVE MEASURES

Government schools are provided legislative authority to ‘manage’ bullying through the various state Education Acts, and disciplinary codes established by the relevant Ministers pursuant to those instruments. The New South Wales Education Act provides a good example of the current legislative perspective consistent with other state and territories:

‘The guidelines and codes may permit other reasonable forms of punishment or correction of those students, including requiring students to perform any reasonable work or service for the school.’ (Emphasis added)

Government schools are required to develop their own student discipline and anti-bullying policies in accordance with state and territory frameworks. The broad nature of the framework permits considerable flexibility for schools to tailor their own discipline codes to suit the schools individual requirements, but in reality Australia continues to rely primarily on punitive measures to counter bullying behaviour in schools. However, an alternative approach is gaining more support in light of several domestic and international trial studies.

IV ALTERNATIVE APPROACH – RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

In the 1990‘s educational professionals recognized the merits of the alternate approach of restorative justice in application to incidents involving bullying within schools. Key areas were identified for the effective operation of restorative practices in the school environment, which instead of focusing on short term reactive responses to bullying, the focus was to teach ‘in culturally meaningful ways, a variety of processes, practices and skills that help address individual, interpersonal, and institutional conflicts, and create safe and welcoming communities.’ The process became inclusionary; not exclusionary, sought to discover underlying problems; not ignore them, focused on restoration and maintenance of social relationships rather than punishment for specific behaviour. Also essential to any restorative practice system is that of ‘responsive regulation’ that advocates ‘a continuum of responses in accordance with the needs of the parties involved. This is in contrast to the existing punitive system of ‘regulatory formalism’ which involves some form of moral judgment regarding the misconduct and a legal judgment based on established rules and codes of conduct.

V RESTORATIVE JUSTICE – POLITICAL LEGAL BARRIER?

In 2003 the National Safe Schools Framework Report (NSSFR) was completed after collaboration between the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, with the policy objective of addressing safety within school environments throughout all Australian jurisdictions. It symbolized a political departure from the traditional perceptions of school bullying and its management, and provided clear recommendations for the use of restorative justice to counter bullying behaviour. In its eleven key recommended principles the problem of bullying required a positive, respectful and inclusionary, holistic school approach. This should be supported with clear policy, staff training, student education, ongoing evaluation in addition to sufficient funding. This and other reports have recognized that restorative justice requires clear and tangible support from politicians, in order to be effective.

Despite this new awareness, reality has proven to be far less encouraging as was demonstrated by the NSW Education Minister in 2007 in support of the traditional use of punitive powers

and the ‘exclusionary’ approach:

‘In 2006 there was a 10 per cent increase in long-term suspensions. This indicates the principals are using their increased powers to provide a safer learning environment and are referring students to purpose-built suspension facilities.’

The Minister’s approach is reflective of the State’s policies provided in the Student Discipline in Government Schools Policy, and the Anti-Bullying Plan for Schools – Procedures. In reviewing the two policies, it is my view they fail to clearly define and provide clearly enounced focus toward restorative justice as established in the NSSFR, and whilst providing detailed procedures relating to suspension and expulsion (supported by specific legislative provisions) do not mention or provide any established restorative framework for schools to adopt. This presents a substantial legal barrier to the effective implementation of restorative practices for two main reasons:

First, research has established that as for any institutionalized policy to be effective, it must be clearly stated, supported, consistent and fully implemented across the relevant jurisdiction. Whilst restorative practices by their nature must be individually tailored to the specific needs of the school, they still require some form of institutionalized framework consistent with restorative principles.

Secondly, the absence of clear government policy and legislative provisions in support of restorative practices does not provide incentive or motivation for the embracing of

This is a preview of the whole essay

Secondly, the absence of clear government policy and legislative provisions in support of restorative practices does not provide incentive or motivation for the embracing of

non-punitive policies. Schools are increasingly being subjected to civil action in tort regarding bullying incidents, and there is strong argument to support the notion that schools will value action of suspension and expulsion as greater protection against such action because it demonstrates clear, definitive action supported by policy and legislation and involves rapid removal of the ‘threat’ from the school. Evidence in favour for the punitive approach is supported by recent Australian research that revealed in particular, secondary school teachers are ‘less likely to employ all strategies apart from punishment and aggression’ in managing student misbehaviour. Schools attempting to adopt restorative practices generally resort back to the use of punitive measures with restorative practices being used as supporting mechanisms only.

Research has clearly identified that for restorative practices to be truly effective they must be clearly and consistently supported by state-wide policy and legislation; something not currently provided.

The political failings raise a number of legal implications for schools seeking to embrace restorative practices.

VI SCHOOLS LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.

6.1 The Issue of Liability.

At common law it is well established that schools owe a non-delegable duty of care to students to ‘maintain a safe educational environment that is conducive to students’ learning’, and may also be held vicariously or directly liable for the occurrence of harm where there was a foreseeable risk of that harm.

In managing school bullying, the non-delegable duty of care and liability (criminally and civilly) may extend to the school in a myriad of circumstances ranging from anti-discrimination laws, action in tort, occupational health and safety laws and even administrative appeals against school decisions. Essentially, school liability may be established where the school has knowledge (or ought to have known) of the bullying behaviour and failed to take effective remedial action.

6.2 Liability Compared – Punitive v Restorative Practices.

The use of punitive measures in response to bullying is well supported with established legislation, policy and procedures, and when combined with appropriate reaction, supervision, and sound record keeping, schools are placed in a strong position to withstand

liability for the harmful effects of bullying.

In contrast, a school that adopts restorative practices, which emphasizes support over accountability to manage bullying behaviour, is not complemented with clearly entrenched state government policies and procedures, and represents a marked departure from the ‘quantifiable’ system of control and discipline. The use of community and school conferences, peer mediation, problem solving circles, restorative interventions and responsive regulation challenge the traditional perspectives adopted by our legal system which can be either informal or formal in nature.

As identified by Strang and Braithwaite, schools are ‘accountable for those aspects of structure, policy, organization, curriculum and pedagogy which have contributed to the harm and injury.’ Restorative practices are reliant upon individual schools formulating, implementing, maintaining and evaluating their own policies and procedures. Therefore, legal considerations are of paramount importance.

6.3 Limiting Liability.

The school must act as a facilitator for all the supporting mechanisms necessary for n the

establishment, maintenance and evaluation of its restorative practices.

In 2005 the ACT Inquiry into Restorative Justice completed its report into the use of restorative practices within its schools. In an examination of the ACT and other programs it provided strong support for the use of restorative practices but also identified significant problems which can be directly related to legal liability for schools.

Based on these and similar recommendations, there is strong argument that deficiency in these identified areas may expose schools to liability for a failure to take effective remedial action against bullying. Consequently, conclusion may be drawn that the following key areas require attention to limit legal liability for schools embracing restorative principles as the core focus of its anti-bullying policy:

Adequate resourcing, education, training and support for stakeholders.
Adequate strategic resourcing to not only ensure effective implementation of restorative practices but also for the maintenance and ongoing evaluation of the system.
Good record keeping.
Security of privacy.
A holistic school approach that is fostered and promoted by the school at all levels.

6.4 Resourcing for Stakeholders.

Schools may be held liable for harm arising from bullying in circumstances where teachers and/or students have not been adequately supported to carry out the school’s anti-bullying policy. Research has established that whilst student training and engagement is generally strong in schools with restorative practices, resourcing for staff is inadequate. Common failings include a lack of:

commitment and acceptance by teachers,
adequate time allocation,
followup training and education,
induction and training for new and relief teachers.

This not only raises issues in civil liability but in areas of criminal liability arising through occupational health and safety and anti-discrimination legislation. Research has found that students through peer mediation and corridor conferencing were managing low level incidents of bullying in isolation because of inadequate support mechanisms and behaviour of adult stakeholders. This must be viewed in context with the non-delegable duty of care and vicarious liability which could place the school in an legally untenable position. Additionally, the very nature of restorative practices can significantly increase the workload on stakeholders such as teachers. If inadequate provision is made for increases in time allocation for matters such as conferencing, training, education, documentation, the school may find itself in breach of provisions under the relevant state and territory Occupational Health and Safety, and Work Cover legislation, and possibly in the area of industrial relations.

6.5 Strategic Resourcing.

Strategic planning and support is also crucial to effective management of restorative practices as was inadequate funding and facilitation of trained mediators, general training of staff, and provision of physical facilities. A primary failing of many institutions in behavior management is that of record keeping and privacy. The involvement of different stakeholders has the potential for breaches of privacy provisions, and a failure to adequately record and document the use of restorative practices has the potential to leave a school extremely vulnerable in any court action. It is therefore essential that school administrators establish and resource effective systems to ensure accurate records and security measures are used by the school.

6.6 Record Keeping.

Whilst the legal issue of record keeping is highly relevant for any behaviour management system, punitive or non-punitive, the decentralized methodology of restorative practices increases the vulnerability to poor record keeping. Failure to adequately document conference agreements, restorative intervention plans and other relevant aspects of the restorative process can result in significant legal consequences should litigation become a reality. Courts have previously shown little tolerance for poor record keeping and there is no reason to presume that schools using restorative practices will be dealt with differently.

Accurate and comprehensive record keeping, clearly expressed and communicated conference agreements and intervention plans are essential in minimizing a schools liability.

6.7 Security of Privacy Issues.

6.7.1 Contemporary Privacy of Information.

Restorative practices may involve numerous stakeholders in response to incidents of bullying including students and people external to the school. The potential for breaches of privacy are substantially increased, in contrast with punitive processes which generally limits the number of parties involved. Breaches of privacy by stakeholders in the absence of effective school policy, education and training may unnecessarily expose the school to breaches of the relevant jurisdictional Privacy Act provisions. This may require the school (as a public sector agency) to formulate and establish a ‘privacy code of practice’. Additionally, the very nature of restorative practices as being holistic and inclusive challenges traditional notions of privacy regarding the intervention process. It is therefore important that schools incorporate the management of information within any restorative practice policy and communicate to staff and students to avoid conflict with privacy laws.

6.7.2 Cyber Bullying and Privacy.

The digital age has further complicated privacy issues through the rapid growth of ‘cyber bullying’. Bullying conducted through the use of internet media, communication and mobile phones raises issues of privacy of communications which can bring its management into possible breaches of both Commonwealth and State legislation. Problems are most likely to occur through the school monitoring of student emails and uploading of harmful material through the school computer network. Interception and monitoring of such activity without the knowledge of the communicator may constitute a criminal offence. This can be negated by clear communication to students (and staff) that all emails and computer usage may be monitored, hence the knowledge requirement is satisfied.

6.8 Holisitic School Approach

6.8.1 The School Environment.

Restorative practice has been shown to only truly effective where the school community as a whole believes and engages in the process. It is therefore encumbent upon the school to take positive action to ensure this is achieved. Failure to do so is likely to result in ineffective application and use of the school’s restorative anti-bullying procedures that may lead to harm arising from bullying and potential liability for the school.

6.8.2 Inter-Agency Cooperation & Consideration.

All too often, bullying may constitute criminal offences under federal, state and territory legislation. This may range from offences against the person or property, offences under anti-discrimination laws to breaches relating to offensive or threatening use of communication networks. Complaints made to the police or other agencies, related to such breaches, has the potential to undermine the restorative practices of a school if dealt with punitively. This may occur because punitive and restorative interventions are diametrically opposed to each other. However, the criminal juvenile justice system and anti-discrimination complaints system have sufficient flexibility to work in support of school restorative principles. Consequently, it is essential for schools to establish and maintain inter-agency networks and collaboration to ensure their restorative interventions realize their full effectiveness.

VII CONCLUSION

The adoption of restorative practices is experiencing widespread acceptance and growth within our school communities. However, there are many legal considerations and barriers to not only its effective implementation, but also the maintenance of a restorative anti-bullying system. The decentralized nature of restorative justice and its engagement with a variety of stakeholders poses significant (but not insurmountable) challenges to senior management in providing effective organization and resources. Failure to address these key areas may expose the school to liability in the event of harm arising from bullying that is not dealt with appropriately.

Whilst some schools may find all the legal and organizational challenges posed by restorative practices as being too difficult, fortitude can be found by asking the question:

Do we as a society wish to respond to bullying by being bullies ourselves, or do we aspire to teaching our children by way of example and mutual respect?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Articles/Books/Reports.

Birch, Charles & Paul, David, Life and Work: Challenging Economic Man (2003) UNSW Publishing, Sydney.

Braithwaite, John, Restorative Justice & Responsive Regulation (2002) Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Butler, Des & Mathews, Ben, Schools and the Law (2007) Federation Press, Sydney.

Cameron, Lisa & Thorsnborne, Margaret, ‘Restorative Justice and School Discipline, Mutually Exlusive?’ in Strang, Heather & Braithwaite, John (eds) Restorative Justice and Civil Society (2001) Cambridge University Press, Hong Kong.

Davies, Douglas, Child Development: a Practitioner’s Guide (2004) Guilford Press, New York.

Evertson, Carolyn & Weinstein, Carol (eds), Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice and Contemporary Issues (2006) Routledge Publishing, New York.

Imber, Michael & Van Geel, Tyll, Education Law (3rd ed, 2004) Routledge Publishing, New York.

Jackson, Jim & Varnham, Sally, Law for Educators: School and University Law in Australia (2007) LexisNexis Butterworths, Sydney.

Krahé, Barbara, The Social Psychology of Aggression (2001) Psychology Press, UK.

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, Legislative Assembly, Inquiry into Restorative Justice (2005).

Lewis, Ramon, ‘Classroom Discipline in Australia’ in Evertson, Carolyn (ed), Handbook of Classroom Management (2006) Routledge Publishing, New York.

Morrison, Brenda, Restoring Safe School Communities (2007) Federation Press, Sydney.

Morrison, Brenda ‘Restorative Justice in Schools’ in Elliott, Elizabeth, Macaire Gordon, Robert (eds) New Directions in Restorative Justice (2005) Willan Publishing, UK.

Morrison, Brenda, ‘Bullying and Victimisation in Schools: A Restorative Justice Approach’ (Research Paper No 219, Trends & Issues in Crimes and Criminal Justice, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2002).

Morrison, Brenda, ‘Schools and Restorative Justice’ in Johnstone, Gerry & Van Ness, Daniel (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice (2007) Willan Publishing, UK.

Rafferty, Cath, ‘Health and Safety Guidelines to Address Bullying at Work’, in , Paul, , Jane, , Robin and , Helga (eds), Bullying from Backyard to Boardroom (2nd ed 2001) Federation Press, Sydney.

Randall, Peter, Bullying in Adulthood: Assessing the Bullies and their Victims (2002 ) Routledge Press, New York.

Rayner, Charlotte, Hoel, Helge & Cooper, Cary, Workplace Bullying (2002) CRC Press, Florida.

Rigby, Ken, ‘Bullying in Schools and The Workplace’, in , Paul, Jane, , Robin & , Helga (eds), Bullying from Backyard to Boardroom (2nd ed 2001) Federation Press, Sydney.

Rigby, Ken, Bullying in Schools and what to do about it – Revised and Updated (2007) Acer Publishing, Melbourne.

Roche, Declan, Accountability in Restorative Justice (2003) Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Rosen, Louis, School Discipline: Best Practices for Administrators (2005) Corwin Press, California.

Shariff, Shaheen, Cyber-Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, the Classroom and the Home (2008) Routledge Publishing, New York.

Spencer, Herbert, Social Statics; Or The Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified, and The First of Them Developed (1865) D Appleton & Company, New York.

Walford, Geoffrey, ‘Bullying in Public Schools: Myth & Reality in Tattum, Delwyn & Lane, David (eds), Bullying in Schools (1994) Trentham Books, London.

Wilson, Lionel & Fulton, Max, ‘Risk management: how doctors, hospitals and MDOs can limit the costs of malpractice litigation’ (2000) 172 Medical Journal of Australia 77.

2. Case Law.

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1987] 1 QB 730.

Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258.

New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 212 CLR 511.

Samin v State of Queensland & Ors [2001] QCA 295.

Rich v Queensland (2003) 195 ALR 412.

Lisa Eskinazi v Victoria (County Court (Vic), No 06471/99, 20 June 2003, unreported).

Inspector Valdis Leinasars v Re & PC Richards Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCIMC 3.

Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258.

Walker v Derbyshire County Council (Nottingham County Court, 13 July 1994, unreported).

MT v Director General, NSW Department of Education and Training [2004] NSWADT 194.

3. Legislation

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).

Education Act 1990 (NSW).

Education Act 2004 (ACT).

Education Act (NT).

Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld).

Education Act 1994 (Tas).

Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic).

Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 (NSW).

Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW).

School Education Act 1999 (WA).

4. Other Sources

Australian Council of Trade Unions, Being Bossed Around is Bad for Your Health (16 September 2003) at 22 December 2008.

Australian Government Department of Education, Training and Workplace Relations, National Safe Schools Framework (2003) <> at 24 December 2008.

Cameron, Lisa & Thorsborne, Margaret, ‘Restorative Justices and School Discipline: Mutually Exclusive?’ (Paper presented at the Reshaping Australian Institutions Conference “Restorative Justice and Civil Society”, Australian National Univesity, Canberra, February 1999).

Drewery Wendy & Winslade, John ‘Developing Restorative Practices in Schools: Flavour of the month or saviour of the system?’ (Paper presented to the AARE/NZARE Conference, Auckland, December 2003).

NSW Department of Education and Training, Student Discipline in Government Schools (2007) <> at 24 December 2008.

NSW Department of Education and Training, Anti-bullying Plan for Schools (2007).

NSW, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 29 May 2007, Hansard 297 (John Della Bosca, Minister for Education and Training).

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, Restorative Justice in Schools (2001) <> at 24 December 2008.

Herbert Spencer, Social Statics; Or The Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified, and The First of Them Developed (1865) 201.

Ibid.

Ken Rigby, ‘Bullying in Schools and The Workplace’, in , , and (eds), Bullying from Backyard to Boardroom (2nd ed 2001) 4-5,

Brenda Morrison, Restoring Safe School Communities (2007) 10-11.

Ken Rigby, Bullying in Schools and what to do about it (2007) 49-57,

Rigby, above n 3, 5-6.

Rigby, above n 3, 5,

Geoffrey Walford, ‘Bullying in Public Schools: Myth & Reality in Delwyn Tattum & David Lane (eds), Bullying in Schools (1994) 81-88.

Rigby, above n 4, 12,

Morrison, above n 3, 77-80.

Rigby, above n 4, 12,

Des Butler & Ben Mathews, Schools and the Law (2007) 44-45,

Wendy Drewery & John Winslade, ‘Developing Restorative Practices in Schools: Flavour of the month or saviour of the system?’ (Paper presented to the AARE/NZARE Conference, Auckland, December 2003) 2.

Ramon Lewis, ‘Classroom Discipline in Australia’ in Carolyn Evertson (ed), Handbook of Classroom Management (2006) 1193-1199,

Morrision, above n 3, 48-59,

Brenda Morrison, ‘Bullying and Victimisation in Schools: A Restorative Justice Approach’ (Research Paper No 219, Trends & Issues in Crimes and Criminal Justice, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2002) 2.

Jim Jackson & Sally Varnham, Law for Educators: School and University Law in Australia (2007) 160,

Education Act 1990 (NSW) s 35,

Education Act 2004 (ACT) s 36,

Education Act (NT) ss 27-29A,

Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld) s 200, 278-336,

Education Act 1994 (Tas) ss 36-39,

Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic) s 2.2.19,

School Education Act 1999 (WA) ss 88-96.

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, Legislative Assembly, Inquiry into Restorative Justice (2005) 4 & 6,

Morrison, above n 3, 77-78.

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10, 7-15,

Morrison, above n 3, 121-149.

Butler, above n 7, 246-249,

Shaheen Shariff, Cyber-Bullying: Issues and Solutions for the School, the Classroom and the Home (2008) 28-42.

Rigby, above n 4, 15.

Morrison, above n 3,

Rigby, above n 4, 49-66.

Charles Birch & David Paul, Life and Work: Challenging Economic Man (2003) 104,

Australian Council of Trade Unions, Being Bossed Around is Bad for Your Health (16 September 2003) at 22 December 2008.

Rigby, above n 3, 4-5, 7-8,

Barbara Krahé, The Social Psychology of Aggression (2001) 119-126.

Michael Imber, Tyll Van Geel, Education Law (3rd ed, 2004) 330.

Charlotte Rayner, Helge Hoel, Cary L. Cooper, Workplace Bullying (2002) 103.

Peter Randall, Bullying in Adulthood: Assessing the Bullies and their Victims (2002 ) 73,

Douglas Davies, Child Development: a Practitioner’s Guide (2004) 352-353,

Shariff, above n 12, 25-26.

Education Act 1990 (NSW) s 35(2B),

See similar provisions under relevant state & territory legislation.

Jackson, above n 9, 154-160, 209,

Butler, above n 7, 155, also see for example:

NSW Department of Education and Training, Anti-bullying Plan for Schools (2007) 5,

NSW Department of Education and Training, Student Discipline in Government Schools (2007) <> at 24 December 2008.

Jackson, above n 9, 154.

Lewis, above n 8, 1193-1199.

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10, 7-15,

Brenda Morrison, ‘Schools and Restorative Justice’ in Gerry Johnstone & Daniel Van Ness (eds), Handbook of Restorative Justice (2007) 325-347.

Morrison, above n 24, 325.

Morrison, above n 24, 327.

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10, 7-15,

Morrison, above n 3, 73-95,

Morrison, above n 24, 325-347,

Rigby, above n 4, 213-235.

Morrison, above n 24, 331.

Ibid.

Australian Government Department of Education, Training and Workplace Relations, National Safe Schools Framework (2003) <> at 24 December 2008.

Ibid.

Australian Government Department of Education, Training and Workplace Relations, above n 30, 5-10,

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10, 7-15,

Morrison, above n 3, 190-191.

NSW, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Council, 29 May 2007, Hansard 297 (John Della Bosca, Minister for Education and Training).

NSW Department of Education and Training, Student Discipline in Government Schools (2007) <> at 24 December 2008.

NSW Department of Education and Training, Anti-bullying Plan for Schools (2007).

Morrison, above n 3, 190-191,

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10, 10-11,

Morrison, above n 24, 343-346,

Jackson, above n 9, 171,

Australian Government Department of Education, Training and Workplace Relations, above n 30, 5-7.

Lewis, above n 8, 23,

Lisa Cameron & Margaret Thorsborne, ‘Restorative Justices and School Discipline: Mutually Exclusive?’ (Paper presented at the Reshaping Australian Institutions Conference “Restorative Justice and Civil Society”, Australian National Univesity, Canberra, February 1999) 10.

Morrison, above n 3, 121-135.

Jackson, above n 9, 208,

Butler, above n 7, 44-45,

Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258,

Lisa Eskinazi v Victoria (County Court (Vic), No 06471/99, 20 June 2003, unreported).

Ramon Lewis, ‘Classroom Discipline in Australia’ in Carolyn Evertson (ed), Handbook of Classroom Management (2006) 1193, 1199.

Ibid,

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10, 10-11.

Morrison, above n 3, 190-191,

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10, 10-11,

Morrison, above n 24, 343-346,

Jackson, above n 9, 171,

Australian Government Department of Education, Training and Workplace Relations, above n 30, 5-7.

Jackson, above n 9, 165.

Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258,

New South Wales v Lepore (2003) 212 CLR 511,

Samin v State of Queensland & Ors [2001] QCA 295,

Rich v Queensland (2003) 195 ALR 412.

Jackson, above n 9, 208-220.

Lisa Eskinazi v Victoria (County Court (Vic), No 06471/99, 20 June 2003, unreported),

Jackson, above n 9, 209,

Commonwealth v Introvigne (1982) 150 CLR 258,

Walker v Derbyshire County Council (Nottingham County Court, 13 July 1994, unreported).

Education Act 1990 (NSW) s 35,

Education Act 2004 (ACT) s 36,

Education Act (NT) ss 27-29A,

Education (General Provisions) Act 2006 (Qld) s 200, 278-336,

Education Act 1994 (Tas) ss 36-39,

Education and Training Reform Act 2006 (Vic) s 2.2.19,

School Education Act 1999 (WA) ss 88-96.

Jackson, above n 9, 221,

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 42(d),

Lisa Eskinazi v Victoria (County Court (Vic), No 06471/99, 20 June 2003, unreported).

Morrison, above n 24, 329-331,

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10, 4.

Morrison, above n 24, 331-347.

Lisa Cameron & Margaret Thorsnborne, ‘Restorative Justice and School Discipline, Mutually Exlusive?’ in Heather Strang & John Braithwaite (eds) Restorative Justice and Civil Society (2001) 184.

Jackson, above n 9, 154-160, 209,

Butler, above n 7, 155, also see for example:

NSW Department of Education and Training, Anti-bullying Plan for Schools (2007) 5,

NSW Department of Education and Training, Student Discipline in Government Schools (2007) <> at 24 December 2008.

Jackson, above n 9, 208-220,

Butler, above n 7, 44-53.

Morrison, above n 3, 195,

Morrison, above n 24, 345-346,

Australian Government Department of Education, Training and Workplace Relations, above n 30, 5-7,

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10.

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10,

Cameron, above n 37, 10-19.

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10, 7-15

Cameron, above n 37, 10-19.

Australian Government Department of Education, Training and Workplace Relations, above n 30, 5-7.

Morrison, above n 8, 6,

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10, 15,

Morrison, above n 3, 195.

Morrison, above n 8, 6,

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10, 15,

Morrison, above n 3, 195.

Lionel Wilson and Max Fulton, ‘Risk management: how doctors, hospitals and MDOs can limit the costs of malpractice litigation’ (2000) 172 Medical Journal of Australia 77, 77-80,

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1987] 1 QB 730.

Butler, above n 7, 246-253.

Morrison, above n 24, 345-346,

Cameron, above n 37, 10-19.

Jackson, above n 9, 220.

Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory Standing Committee on Education, Training and Young People, above n 10,

Cameron, above n 37, 10-19.

Cameron, above n 37, 10-19,

Lewis, above n 8, 1193-1199,

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, Restorative Justice in Schools (2001) <> at 24 December 2008.

Jackson, above n 9, 215-217,

Cath Rafferty, ‘Health and Safety Guidelines to Address Bullying at Work’, in , , and (eds), Bullying from Backyard to Boardroom (2nd ed 2001) 101-109.

Carolyn Evertson, Carol Weinstein (eds), Handbook of Classroom Management: Research, Practice and Contemporary Issues (2006) 875.

Jackson, above n 9, 204-207.

Drewery, above n 7,

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, above n 64, 13-19.

Inspector Valdis Leinasars v Re & PC Richards Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCIMC 3,

See for example: Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 (NSW) s 8, and equivalent provisions in other jurisdictions.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, above n 64, 13-19,

Drewery, above n 7,

Wilson, above n 59,

Louis Rosen, School Discipline: Best Practices for Administrators (2005) 30.

Rosen, above n 71.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, above n 64, 13-19,

Jackson, above n 9, 277.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, above n 64, 13-19,

Jackson, above n 9, 277.

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1987] 1 QB 730,

Wilson, above n 59,

Rosen, above n 71.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, above n 64, 13-19,

Jackson, above n 9, 277.

Declan Roche, Accountability in Restorative Justice (2003) 192.

Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (NSW),

Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).

Jackson, above n 9, 272-278,

MT v Director General, NSW Department of Education and Training [2004] NSWADT 194,

Butler, above n 7, 234-246.

Jackson, above n 9, 272-278,

MT v Director General, NSW Department of Education and Training [2004] NSWADT 194,

Butler, above n 7, 234-246.

Shariff, above n 12, 1-2.

Butler, above n 7, 246.

Shariff, above n 12, 191-223,

Butler, above n 7, 246-249.

Shariff, above n 12, 191-223,

Butler, above n 7, 246-249.

John Braithwaite, Restorative Justice & Responsive Regulation (2002) 59-60,

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, above n 64, 13-19,

Morrison, above n 3.

Braithwaite, above n 86, 59-60,

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, above n 64, 13-19,

Morrison, above n 3.

Braithwaite, above n 86, 59-60,

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, above n 64, 13-19,

Morrison, above n 3,

Inspector Valdis Leinasars v Re & PC Richards Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCIMC 3.

Lewis, above n 8, 1211,

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, above n 64, 13-19,

Drewery, above n 7,

Shariff, above n 12, 19-26,

Brenda Morrison, ‘Restorative Justice in Schools’ in Elizabeth Elliott, Robert Macaire Gordon (eds) New Directions in Restorative Justice (2005) 26-29.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, above n 64, 13-19,

Drewery, above n 7,

Shariff, above n 12, 19-26,

Morrison, above n 89, 26-29,

Butler, above n 7, 246-248.

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, above n 64, 13-19,

Braithwaite, above n 86, 149-150.

Lewis, above n 8, 1211,

Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, above n 64, 13-19.