Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett yesterday said he is "struggling" with deciding whether it was "unreasonable" for the Anglican Central Education Authority (ACEA) to cancel graduation and prom for the St. John's College 2013 senior class.

Attorneys representing the ACEA and 26 students of St. John's College made closing submissions before Sir Michael in the Supreme Court.

The chief justice said he saw no evidence that all of the students in the 2013 class did something wrong and he questioned if the school had a legal right to deny all students the right to participate in the graduation ceremony.

However, he also said the ACEA's internal documents state that the school can exclude anyone from graduation.

Attorney Christina Galanos, who represents the students, said unilaterally canceling the graduation was a "dangerous" move because the school had entered into contracts with each student.

She was referring to a school code of conduct agreement each student signed. Sir Michael said while the ACEA's decision may be "unsympathetic" in the eyes of some, he did not know whether he could call the decision wrong.

A main point in Galanos' case is that the school entered into individual contracts with the students, which said they would be eligible for graduation once they met certain requirements.

Galanos said there was nothing in the contract that said the school could cancel the entire ceremony because of the actions of a few students.

Galanos also said the ACEA's policy manual states that the parents would be immediately informed if a student does not meet graduation standards and the principal would provide a written statement outlining this. She said this procedure was not followed in this case.

ACEA lawyer Krystal Rolle said the organization has several reasons for canceling the graduation, including the fact that more than 90 percent of seniors did not show up to school on "ditch day" and the participation of some students in a video posted on Youtube which showed them dancing.

Galanos argued that the defense did not produce evidence that the students were involved in these situations. She also said they had a legitimate expectation to participate in a graduation ceremony. She added that the school accepted money from the students for the graduation ceremony and held two graduation practices after the "ditch day".

Galanos said the school should stop using the video in question as a reason to cancel the events because the students performed the same dance before the school principal and teachers at a senior day in May.

During her closing arguments, Rolle said the school never signed a contract with the students promising to hold a graduation ceremony.

She said the document in question was a pledge the students undertook to abide by the school's rules.

Rolle has also argued that the ACEA was not contractually obligated to hold a graduation ceremony for the students, only to award them diplomas upon meeting the graduation requirements at the end of grade 12.

Galanos filed suit against the ACEA in June after it canceled the students' graduation ceremony and prom for what the organization called "gross insubordination and deceit".

She has asked the court to award more than $60,000 in collective damages along with the return of a $300 graduation and prom fee to each student and $120 to each student who paid for a non-student prom ticket.

Galanos has asked for $1,000 for each student for the cancelation of the graduation ceremony and $1,000 per student for the cancelation of the prom.

Sir Michael said yesterday he expects to make a decision on the matter "as quickly as possible".

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian