Court bins autistic man's suit against school and govt over lack of education

 

A man suffering from autism spectrum disorder (ASD) failed in his lawsuit against the school and government for not getting an education suited to his condition when he was younger.

The Kuala Lumpur High Court this afternoon dismissed the civil action by the 24-year-old and his foster mother against Sekolah Menengah Pendidikan Khas Vokasional in Shah Alam, its headmaster Sazali Mohd Karli, the Education Ministry and the federal government.

On May 26 2017, the two plaintiffs filed the writ of summons to seek several reliefs, among them a declaration that he has the constitutional right to receive a level of education appropriate to his condition.

The plaintiffs claimed that the four defendants breached their statutory duty to provide a safe and secure environment for the man when he was 17 years old in 2016, which allegedly resulted in bullying against him by other special needs students.

During today’s online proceedings, judge Nik Hasmat Nik Mohamad said while she expressed sympathy with the family as she herself has a disabled 30-year-old daughter, she said the court still had to dismiss the suit as the two plaintiffs failed to prove their case.

Purported failure

Nik Hasmat noted that the plaintiffs failed to prove the four alleged incidents of bullying, which the plaintiffs had sought to link to the purported failure of the defendants to provide a safe and secure learning environment.

The first alleged incident involved a student purportedly tying the then-17-year-old boy to the bed of the school dormitory, with the former then allegedly punching the latter.

The second alleged incident involved other students allegedly assaulting the boy at a mosque after the boy purportedly ignored a student who spat on him.

The third alleged incident involved somebody pulling away a chair from the boy while he was praying, causing him to fall and sustain head injury.

The fourth alleged incident involved a telephone conversation between the then boy and the mother, where the boy claimed another student made a gesture as though about to beat him.

No witnesses

Nik Hasmat noted that police investigation into the matter failed to turn up any evidence of the alleged bullying, and that there were no witnesses to the alleged bullying.

The judge noted that in spite of the bullying claims, the son continued to remain in the school until the completion of his studies there.

Nik Hasmat pointed out that the mother’s own testimony in court was beset by various inconsistencies.

The judge noted that there did not seem to be bullying as the then-17-year-old boy seemed to have issues with another special needs student who allegedly bullied him, resulting in them being involved in fights rather than actual bullying of one person against another.

“Perhaps her (mother's) experience in the United States influenced her view (on schooling for special needs students).

“I had been in the United Kingdom and I myself have a special (needs) child (daughter). I had expectations too, but in the end I ended up in a private school (in Malaysia for her daughter).

“Despite the four alleged bullying incidents, the son was still there (in the school) and continued there.

“At the end of the day, the expectation must be rationalised as this is not special detention centre where so many wardens are around and the security system is to the hilt. This is a normal school for students.

“I do not expect the defendants to provide a maximum security system to ensure a safe environment. This is my observation of the second plaintiff (mother), but I do not wish to go further as she is a dedicated mother to her son,” Nik Hasmat said.

At the end of proceedings, the plaintiffs’ counsel Sangeet Kaur Deo applied for costs be set at RM5,000 as this is a public interest case.

However, the defendants’ legal representative, senior federal counsel Safiyyah Omar, urged the court to set costs at RM15,000.

Nik Hasmat then directed the mother and son - who holds a disability card - to pay RM10,000 in costs to the defendants.

When contacted after proceedings, Sangeet said they are most likely to appeal to the Court of Appeal. - Mkini