From The Sydney Morning Herald, 26th October 1971, page 2.

Caned boy sues schoolteacher

ASSAULT ALLEGED

A 15-year-old Trinity Grammar School boy yesterday sued a schoolmaster in the District Court, alleging assault.

The boy, Colin James Morris, of Cripps Avenue, Kingsgrove, claimed the master had caned him to an immoderate and excessive extent.

His father, Mr Edwin Morris, on behalf of his son, sued the master, Mr Albert Gordon Farr, and the council of Trinity Grammar School, for damages.

The boy told Judge Staunton that Mr Farr, a maths master, had caned him after he pushed a smaller boy off a hessian bag on to some concrete in April last.

Under cross-examination by Mr T. Hughes, QC (for Mr Farr), he admitted he had been bullying the smaller boy and that he had deserved the punishment.

He said Mr Farr had told him he would give him three cuts of the cane for the incident.

After the first cut, he had told Mr Farr that he had boils on his buttocks.

Mr Farr had told him to bring a note from his parents next day.

But his mother had refused to write the note as she said he had pimples - not boils.

Next day, Mr Farr had caned him for the previous day's incident and given him three more cuts for lying.

His buttocks were sore and there was some bruising.

He had shown his father the marks and his father had taken photographs of his buttocks. Next day, his father had taken him to a professional photographer for more pictures.

The photographs were tendered as evidence.

Mc C. Callaway (for Morris) said bruises from the caning had lasted three to four weeks and a doctor had testified that the boy's buttocks would have ached and it would have been painful for him to sit for a week.

"I don't deny that the punishment inflicted was justified but the point is that what was inflicted was immoderate and excessive," Mr Callaway said.

"Just because three cuts of the cane were necessary for each offence, you cannot sanction the degree of assault," he said.

Mr Farr, of Arcadian Circuit, Carlingford, said that the boy had pushed a much smaller boy across the hessian bag on to the concrete.

The smaller boy's head had landed a fraction on an inch from a pillar.

Mr Farr said he had told Colin Morris: "That was a very stupid thing to do and that was bullying under school rules. I must cane you."

He said he had given the boy one cut of the cane and five more the next day after he had checked with the parents that the boy did not have boils.

He said the boy's father had said when told about the caning: "You go ahead. I'll give him some more when he gets home."

Mr Farr agreed under cross-examination that he was 16 stone and had to control his strength when administering the cane.

"If a boy breaks the school rules I am bound to inflict corporal punishment," he said.

Judge Staunton reserved his decision.

From The Sydney Morning Herald, 3rd November 1971, page 3.

Teacher who caned schoolboy was justified, judge rules

A teacher ruled yesterday to have been justified in caning a pupil said last night: "I am very happy with the decision."

Speaking at his Carlingford home, Mr Albert Gordon Farr of Trinity Grammar School said the court judgment had amplified past decisions on corporal punishment in schools.

Mr Farr was taking classes yesterday and was not in the District Court to hear Judge Staunton say: "The salutary effect of the infliction of pain on a schoolboy, experience might show, justifies the reasonable use of this form of chastisement on healthy teenage boys."

The judge said it was the privilege of a teacher to inflict corporal punishment on a pupil so long as it was moderate, reasonable and not dictated by bad motives.

He said the pupil, Colin James Morris, 15, of Cripps Avenue, Kingsgrove, had deserved a "good thrashing" and in the circumstances, the punishment had been no more than proper and reasonable.

In a reserved decision, he rejected a claim for damages for assault brought on behalf of the boy by his father, Mr Edwin Morris.

Mr Morris had sued Mr Farr and the school council.

Judge Staunton said Mr Farr had decided to cane Colin Morris after seeing him push a smaller boy violently to a concrete floor without justification:

"I do not think Morris intended any serious harm to the other lad but I am satisfied that the act justified and required some punishment," he said.

He said Mr Farr had recorded in the school punishment register that he intended to give Morris three cane strokes.

The boy had then been ordered to bend over so that his buttocks could be struck. After receiving one stroke, Morris had told Mr Farr he had boils on his buttocks.

Mr Farr had told him to bring a note from his parents about this, but they had refused to write one because the boy did not have boils, although he claimed to have had some pimples.

Judge Staunton said he accepted Mr Farr's evidence that Morris' father agreed over the telephone that his son should receive the remaining two strokes and three more cane strokes for lying.

Mr Farr had completed the punishment on April 6.

Mr Morris had inspected his son's buttocks that night and taken colour photographs of them on finding they were severely bruised.

Colin Morris had given evidence that he experienced pain when sitting for three days after the caning and said the bruising had remained for about three weeks.

The judge said the boy's original act had been a "stupid one which could have had serious consequences" and three strokes seemed a quite reasonable punishment.

"To lie to escape more than one stroke, as I find Mr Farr was justified in believing [Morris] had done, was clearly deserving of extra punishment," the judge said.

"In my view, the additional three strokes were not excessive in number to a strapping, well-covered, 15-year-old boy."



The judge said he accepted Mr Farr's evidence that the strokes were not administered with the full force of the cane and were not unusually hard.

He said: "Boys who are caned must expect to have pain - that is the prime object of this form of punishment."

Dean this just goes to show that even the Judges were ignorant of the traumatic long term effects this type of punishment can cause.

It's obvious that it was traumatic because the boy filed a law suit. I guess the judge overlooked that fact. I'd say defense council was ineffective.

Defence counsel won - prosecution counsel may possibly have been ineffective.

But probably not - a District Court Judge would have had virtually no jurisdiction to rule on a matter of mental trauma in 1971. The case was based on whether the punishment was physically excessive. Other matters would have been outside the scope of the court.

Also, there's evidence that Colin Morris did not want this case brought, but that his father did so against his will, out of purely financial considerations. I've seen the court documents (which include the photographs described in the article) and that don't paint Mr Morris is a very good light at all.

Thanks Dean for yet another interesting, non-salacious, on-topic posting. Keep up the good work and please do not be discouraged by the apparent lack of interest in factual material.

The historical material is very interesting in that it reflects the implicit thinking of the time. How else could boys be kept in order without the cane? There was increasing questioning of corporal punishment, and other things, during the 1970's and after.

I do not believe that many boys who were caned "fairly" suffered lasting trauma in the old days. It was the way things were. Lasting trauma is much more likely when the punishment is perceived as grossly unfair or harsh and others confirm the perception. Well meaning people risk generating trauma by inappropriate sympathy. I recall a bit of hyperbole from another forum. The writer's mother told her son never mind, she would make his favorite pudding for tea on learning he was to be caned at school. Sympathy of this type can de-traumatise whereas expressing outrage at the school for daring to punish the clearly guilty might increase the trauma.

I do not believe that many boys who were caned "fairly" suffered lasting trauma in the old days. It was the way things were. Lasting trauma is much more likely when the punishment is perceived as grossly unfair or harsh and others confirm the perception. Well meaning people risk generating trauma by inappropriate sympathy. I recall a bit of hyperbole from another forum. The writer's mother told her son never mind, she would make his favorite pudding for tea on learning he was to be caned at school. Sympathy of this type can de-traumatise whereas expressing outrage at the school for daring to punish the clearly guilty might increase the trauma.
-----------------

Interesting theory but where is your proof? You conclusions may be as valid as the one that says that the moon is made of cheese and reflect nothing more than what you would prefer to believe.

Where is the proof the "theory" is wrong?
-------------------------
Interesting theory but where is your proof? Your conclusions may be as valid as the one that says that the moon is made of cheese and reflect nothing more than what you would prefer to believe.

Where is the proof the "theory" is wrong?
--------------------------------

I would suggest that the burden of proof lies with the theorist who is stating his theory as fact, not with the skeptic who suggests that words need to be backed up with more than simply a will to believe them.

You stated your beliefs as conclusions as if they were fact rather than mere theory for readers to consider and debate. You can theorize all you want but without a shred of proof, your conclusions are meaningless and only serve whatever personal purpose you may have in drawing such conclusions and believing them without any proof.

So go right ahead and believe anything you want about CP and related "lasting trauma" but don't be surprised if your unsupported conclusions are questioned and perhaps believed about as readily by some as one might believe any other unsupported assertion.