-- THE ARCHIVE --

UNITED KINGDOM

Daily Mail, London, 13 November 1976

The classroom terror

Head cleared as caned girl sobs in court

THE reign of Lynne Simmonds as a classroom terror ended when
she was caned by the headmistress, a court heard yesterday.

LYNNE SIMMONDS

MISS JANET DINES

Lynne, who had a history of bad behaviour, was sent to Miss
Janet Dines for eating crisps during a maths lesson.

But the three whacks given to 14-year-old Lynne on her bottom
landed Miss Dines, head of Northwich Girls' Grammar School,
Cheshire, in court.

Lynne's parents brought a private assault and beating charge.
They claimed that Lynne was punished unreasonably.

But after Lynne broke down weeping as she told of her
classroom antics, the case was withdrawn and Northwich
magistrates dismissed the charge against the middle-aged
headmistress.

Lynne, who passed her 11 plus to go to the school, admitted a
catalogue of misbehaviour when cross-examined by Mr. John
Hoggett, counsel for Miss Dines.

She said she told rude jokes in the scripture lessons while
discussing moral and ethical questions.

She made remarks about teachers behind their backs and blew
raspberries at them.

She told lies about having lost homework which she had not
done and took a classmate's book without permission.

She stole a teacher's pen off her desk and offered it to a
friend for a pound, and she disrupted the class.

Lynne was suspended for half a day by Miss Dines for the pen
incident and her father gave her the strap.

She also admitted handing in a school project done by another
girl, claiming it was hers.

But the girl -- in hospital and temporarily blind -- returned
and Lynne was found out.

Then she was caught eating in a lesson and was sent to Miss
Dines. The headmistress entered the punishment in the official
book and told her she would be writing to her parents.

Lynne said that after the caning her bottom was sore for
several weeks and she had been unable to sleep properly.

Mr Peter Hughes, prosecuting, said that a memo from Cheshire
Education Committee laid down "If corporal punishment is
used, it should only be a last resort and must only be used where
it fits the offence."

He claimed Miss Dines acted unreasonably in view of the red
weals the caning left.

When Lynne broke down there was an adjournment and Mr Hughes
asked for the case to be withdrawn.

Mr Hoggett said: "This case has been hanging over my
client, a responsible headmistress of this town, for a long time.

"There has been adverse publicity. It has been a time of
great tension and distress. She is entitled to regard this as a
complete vindication."

A spokesman for the Parent Governors said they would be
discussing the case.

As he left with his still weeping daughter, who now goes to
another school, Harry Simmonds, a dairy supervisor, of Sidney
Street, Greenbank, Northwich, said: "No more comments. She
has had enough."

Northwich Guardian, Cheshire, 18 November 1976

Head who caned girl pupil is cleared

'Her actions vindicated' -- Counsel

(extracts)

HEADMISTRESS Miss Janet Dines has been cleared of assaulting
and beating a 14-year-old Northwich Girls' Grammar School pupil
last summer.

A Northwich Magistrates' Court case came to a [sic] abrupt
end on Friday after Lynne Marie Simmonds burst into tears while
giving evidence. After a 10-minute adjournment to give her time
to recover, prosecuting barrister Mr Peter Hughes said he would
offer no further evidence against Miss Dines and asked for the
case to be dismissed.

Members of the staff afterwards crowded round Miss Dines in
court to congratulate her, but neither she nor Lynne's parents
would talk to the Press, and Lynne hid her face against her
mother's shoulder as they left the court surrounded by national
newspaper photographers.

Mr Hughes said Maths teacher Miss Hobbs had caught Lynne with
the crisps and sent her to Miss Dines. She was told to go back
after lessons, but it was 4.30pm before the head could see her.
It was not usual to keep girls behind unless their parents knew
in advance.

"Miss Dines told her she would have to cane her, told her
to pull her dress up, bend over and lean against the bookcase,
and gave her three strokes on her backside," said Mr Hughes.

Police had taken photographs next day, and he handed copies to
the bench. Woman Police Sergeant Valerie Lowry was due to give
evidence that she could still see the marks 10 days later.

A letter from Dr Kiaran O'Sullivan, of Barnton, said Lynne had
three red weals across her buttocks, two of them stretching round
the hip region 14 inches long, and two marks on her knuckles.

Lynne, now a pupil of Hartford County Secondary School, said
she got the marks on her knuckles while holding her dress up, as
Miss Dines had told her to. She had been wearing a blue summer
uniform dress, navy knickers and tights.

She had her bicycle with her, but was too sore to ride all
three miles and her parents were worrying about her when she got
home. She and the office staff had tried in vain to get a message
to them.

"It was a very hot day and Miss Dines said her dogs had
been shut in the car for over an hour and were suffocating
because of me," Lynne told the court. "After she had
caned me she entered it in the punishment book, and it was about
the end of the second page or the beginning of the third. She
told me she had hardly had to cane anybody in all the 10 years
she had been there as head."

Lynne said Miss Dines told her her parents would receive a
letter in the post the next morning. "I did not want them to
know, but she said it was the regulation."

She denied to Mr John Hoggett (for Miss Dines) that she was so
angry because of this that she threatened to "get" her.

Mr Hoggett reminded Lynne her father had strapped her across
the legs after Miss Dines told him about her taking a fountain
pen on an earlier occasion from French mistress Mrs McMullen, but
she still denied she wanted to get Miss Dines into trouble for
reporting her to her parents again.

Mr Hughes said when the police interviewed Miss Dines the day
afterwards, she produced an ordinary three foot cane, which she
said was an "official" cane she had brought from her
previous school. Asked if Lynne had been in trouble with her
before, Miss Dines had said she had spoken to the parents and
they had agreed if she had trouble with Lynne she should punish
her.

"This arose when Lynne took a pen in class," said Mr
Hughes. "One would think that was a more serious incident
than eating in class, but on that occasion Miss Dines asked the
parents if they would punish her or if she should do it. They
said they would do it and her father strapped her."

Mr Hughes maintained views on punishment had changed
considerably from Victorian times and since he and the
magistrates were at school. The Cheshire Education Authority did
not forbid the use of corporal punishment but deprecated its use
on girls.

"In my submission Miss Dines went beyond the reasonable,
and the punishment did not fit the crime," Mr Hughes
claimed.

[...]

It was while her own counsel, Mr Hughes, was questioning Lynne
about Press interviews that she burst into tears and the court
was adjourned.

After the adjournment, Mr Hughes said he wanted to offer no
further evidence and asked for the case against Miss Dines to be
dismissed.

Addressing the magistrates, chaired by Mr Wilfred Price, Mr
Hoggett said the case had been hanging over a respected
headmistress for some time. It had been a time of tension and
distress, and what had just happened was a complete vindication
of her and she was entitled to ask for costs. However, Miss Dines
recognised other people had also been distressed, in particular
Lynne and her parents, so he was instructed not to ask for costs.

Northwich Guardian, Cheshire, 18 November 1976

Editorial

Responsibility of headship

WHATEVER the distress caused to all parties by the hearing at Northwich Magistrates' Court on Friday, the publicity which has followed should at last clear the air of rumours and counter-rumours which have flooded Northwich since a girl was caned at Northwich Grammar School for Girls by the headmistress.

We have already quoted at length in this column on the controversy which always surrounds corporal punishment in this present age. There are those in favour of it and those against. Neither will ever be convinced by the other side and any discussion on the subject ends in violent argument that solves nothing.

Unfortunately, these cases have a habit of ending in a court of law, and many people, as a result, are subject to probing, publicity and public questioning that goes much farther than the simple use of a cane by a teacher on a naughty pupil.

There are organisations, too, ready to leap on this bandwagon to further their own aims.

But one thing is sure. We have not yet reached the stage in the practical day to day running of our schools where the responsibilities of a head teacher have been taken over by a committee or a "people's court" of any sort. A headmaster or headmistress is chosen by the County Council to run a school, with a broad set of rules for guidance but a free hand as to their interpretation. That is as it must be.

If head teachers are so worried that their actions may lead to court appearances and public argument then they just cannot do their work properly. And when that situation arises it is bad for the whole community.

Education is very much in the public eye at the moment. Even the Prime Minister has given his thoughts on the subject. By all means let us have the closest possible interest in education by all sections of the community -- but let that interest deal with the broad principles and not the detail, which is delegated to a person who is answerable to the proper authority for it.