Case Summaries

Two students made reports to the police about rape and attempted rape by Student A in shared accommodation. The police contacted the Student A’s provider and requested an information sharing meeting. Following this meeting the provider considered Student A’s case at a risk assessment panel. The panel decided that due to the seriousness of the allegations, the student should be suspended as a precautionary measure while the police investigation and any associated criminal proceedings were ongoing. The student was informed of the decision and told it would be periodically reviewed. The provider also removed the student from his accommodation. A disciplinary case to consider whether the student had committed sexual misconduct under the provider’s disciplinary procedures was opened and placed on hold.

Student A appealed the decision to suspend him and the provider rejected his appeal. He complained to us because he thought the decision to suspend him was disproportionate and that the provider had already decided he was guilty.

We did not uphold the student’s complaint (we decided it was Not Justified). We decided that the provider had followed its procedures in reaching the decision to suspend the student as a precautionary measure. Its decision had been properly risk assessed and had already taken into account all of the issues the student raised in their appeal. We therefore decided the provider’s final decision to reject the appeal was reasonable.

The student said that the provider had decided that he was a risk based on the police disclosure, rather than making its own impartial assessment of the risk he might pose. We decided it was reasonable for the provider to have considered the information provided by the police when making its decision. The provider had carefully weighed up the potential risk the student might pose to the reporting students and to the provider’s wider staff and student body, with the potential consequences for him. There was no evidence to support the student’s complaint that the provider had made assumptions about the outcome of the police investigation or prejudged the outcome of its on-hold disciplinary procedures. The allegations against the student were serious and we decided it was reasonable for the provider to have imposed precautionary measures when there was an evidence-based concern about risk.

We were also satisfied the provider had properly considered the potential impact of the suspension on the student, including whether there were any actions that could be taken to mitigate any disadvantage. In his appeal the student said the suspension was disproportionate and that he should’ve been allowed to continue with his studies remotely. When conducting its risk assessment, the provider had considered whether the student could continue with his studies online. But it concluded there were practical obstacles to allowing the student to study an in-person course remotely for an extended period given the length of time it was likely to take the case to reach the courts. The student also raised concerns about the impact of the suspension on their visa status. The risk assessment panel had taken this into account when making its decision and concluded this risk had been mitigated because it had received advice from the police that the student would be given indefinite leave to remain while on bail.