Copy: CBHS Counsel Attempt to Exclude Media, As Singleton Defends Board's Actions

24 April 2025: The New Zealand Reporter: Detailed coverage of the rest of the board chair's evidence on 3 April in Employment Relations Authority case.

On Day 4 (3 April 2025) of the Susan Mowat v Christchurch Boys’ High School Board of Trustees case, tensions had noticeably ramped up. Board chair Michael Singleton was meant to continue to give evidence. But something was up.

Singleton had already voiced his displeasure at the media presence on day 3, saying "shame we are here”.

“No one wants to be here with media, tap, tap, tapping away."

At 8:52 the night before, Christchurch Boys’ legal counsel AJ Lodge (pictured in white) had emailed the Employment Relations Authority and Susan Mowat’s legal team, seeking an amendment to the Exclusion Order, in order to remove media from “the remainder of the Investigation Meeting”.

On either day 1 or 2 of the hearing, the Employment Relations Authority member Lucia Vincent had ensured all media present had a copy of the non-publication order.

Vincent had prohibited publication of 4 separate matters relating to individuals caught up in the wide sweep of the Susan Mowat-CBHS story.

By day 2, Vincent was aware some media outlets had already breached the order in connection with suppressed evidence given by witness and Police officer Dan Isherwood.

She reiterated the terms of the order and asked that the material be taken down. At least one media entity promised to do so.

But, by the morning of Day 4, the author was aware several media entities had breached the order again.

The full ramifications for the media of a decision to exclude were not clear at that stage.

Mowat's counsel Kathryn Dalziel hadn't finished questioning board chair Michael Singleton. It also wasn't clear who else Boys' High would give evidence and, were Vincent to acquiesce to the Board's request, what would the media and the public miss out on.

Former deputy principal Steve Fraser had already been sitting in the hearing on day 3 or 4, and an unidentified woman had been sitting quietly on the Boys' High side. But the prospect of principal Nic Hill giving evidence was unthinkable.

There was no clear end in sight for anybody present, with Vincent repeatedly declaring her wish to see out the hearing by that Friday, the fifth day of the hearing.

A strange feeling of foreboding hung over the room as people filed into the room. The media hung to the rear, the parties and supporters on and around the long tables, and one occupant remained absent: Lucia Vincent. Not only would she be the one to decide the case for one side or the other, but also whether she would rule in favour of media (or the School board), who would report in more and more detail, the weaknesses in both sides arguments and later the newly coined expression: "nocturnal defecations". Had some gone too far or did freedom of speech trump the repeated breaches of her own order not to publicise.

Vincent entered the room, sat and then brought up Boys' High's application and new breaches, involving at least one of the suppressed matters. It is likely that Vincent told the room she took concern for certain parties-for whom, I'm not mentioning-seriously.

A Stuff journalist would speak on behalf of Stuff/The Press, Radio NZ, NZME/The New Zealand Herald and The NZR. But The NZR indicated it had not been party to the breaches and the discussions. The journalist made his case to Vincent and indicated that Stuff had lawyers ready to go-an indication that court action might await Vincent if she agreed to the school's request-and that they (Stuff) had simply referred to facts (i.e. that something had happened), so that publishing them did not infringe upon her order.

Vincent had a decision to make. The NZR recorded three comments that might have come from Vincent either prior to or after her decision to allow the media to stay, including one that likely did: she had serious reservations the order could be maintained.

With that dilemma concluded, Dalziel re-commenced questioning the board chair, Michael Singleton, about the first Nic Hill complaint of 31 May 2018. She put it to him that this led to Mowat's handwriting be provided to Police. The school had followed the principles of natural justice, responded Singleton, and was responsible for the mana of all students, etc.

Hill's complaint and two others would follow in the wake of receipt of the anonymous letters and his complaints came at or about the same time as the school commenced its investigation to purportedly into the allegations in the letters. It (possibly through Singleton would maintain Mowat was not under investigation.

Was the complaint caught by a policy? Dalziel followed. He agreed. The NZR has not identified the policy but it likely relates to complaints about staff.

Had [likely Susan Mowat] been fully informed of the complaint and identity of the complainant? Mowat was told on 19 September 2019. (This comment could have come from either Susan Mowat or Michael Singleton.) Therefore, the board had delayed telling Mowat by about 15 and a half months.

Why had the board not told her? asked Dalziel. The board wanted to break Singleton the matter into two parts:

- the anonymous letters, and

- who wrote them.

Dalziel persisted, asking Singleton whether not telling her was a breach of the policy. Singleton denied this charge and also denied there were hundreds of letters. He likely said they [likely the letters] contained an allegation [or allegations] of harassment and safety issues. He agreed with Dalziel this was exceptional, saying any[one] would agree this was exceptional. He [or they, the board] were put in a difficult position because allegations had been made about the headmaster.

She moved from the board's handling of Hill's complaint of May 2018 to Susan Mowew at's own of 16 February 2019. He agreed it was in writing and based on factual information and that triggered the policy, but said it was treated as a matter in a employment process not a complaint process.

Dalziel queried this move and then asked Singleton did Mowat receive an acknowledgment in 5 working days. He acknowledged she hadn't. It is possible this was a policy requirement.

Singleton agreed the former board chair, Leanne Watson, did acknowledge her complaint. Dalziel asked why the 14 March 2019 minutes-the meeting attended by Watson, board member David Caldwell and Mowat-hadn't been provided to her. The NZR had no record of Singleton's reponse, if one was made.

He agreed Mowat's complaint contained details, that all information had been provided, and that the complainant had been identified.

(The NZR notes from the next exchange are not clear enough to be shown here.)

Then Singleton confirmed for Dalziel that a senior school leader knew about the yellow cones were on Kahu Road and that a range of matters were known to either the board or party or parties unidentified in The NZR notes.

Dalziel followed this with a list of other matters that Singleton agreed the board knew about, including Susan Mowat's concerns; her stated breakdown, six months recovery, and total loss of confidence and self-esteem; impact of not receiving the Keir Report (N.B: Mowat did receive a redacted report in March 2019); being accused was an outstanding concern for her."She still had views on this," agreed Singleton. (Not all concerns have been listed, because The NZR notes are not clear enough.)

There was no evidence the board acknowledged Rich Mowat's complaint within 5 working days, asked Dalziel.

Singleton said Leanne Watson, the former board chair, had acknowledged it in an email to his wife, Susan Mowat, the applicant.

He said the board determined that Susan Mowat wanted mediation. But it chose to proceed with looking to make a "smoother...relationship". Steve Fraser would become the point of contact and Mowat had noted she had a good relationship with him.

Dalziel noted there was nothing in the 14 March 2019 minutes showing she was told about the conclusion regarding mediation assistance.

Singleton differed.

For him it was clear in the meeting notes-even if it wasn't explicit-that Leanne Watson and board member David Caldwell were trying to steer Mowt to that forward looking path but exorcised she wanted to go over "old matters". The board was clear that mediation was not possible between Mowat and principal Nic Hill.

The NZR's notes on Dalziel's next few questions were not clear enough to permit being printed.

Dalziel returned to the question of the board minutes.

Brenda Preston and the March 2019 minutes

Singleton agreed the board for March 2019 was prepared in BoardPro and that the board received training from Brenda Preston, the former board secretary. But he told Dalziel, board members don't prepare minutes and do not engage in BoardPro.

On this point, his evidence and Preston's successor Kathryn Doig (on day 5) would not match entirely. Doig would give evidence that changes were made to at least one set of minutes and that she had not been involved. If not she, then who had?

Singleton then assailed Brenda Preston's work record as the board secretary. The school didn't employ board secretaries but contracted with CES. In his view, Preston "didn't do a great job", that documents were not prepared on time for Leanne Watson and was with the board for a short time. He would not categorise her as experienced and highly capable.

The NZR sought to contact Preston at her current workplace for comment but has not heard from her.