Case Summaries

Following a student society event, multiple students used the provider’s reporting tool to make allegations of misconduct against student A that had occurred both at the event and on other occasions. The allegations included non-consensual sex, unwanted comments and touching of a sexual nature, and using offensive and inappropriate language. The provider convened a risk assessment panel, which decided student A should be suspended as a precautionary measure pending the outcome of its disciplinary procedures. One of the reporting students also made a report to the police, so the provider later placed its disciplinary procedures on hold until the police confirmed that no further action was being taken.

A disciplinary panel considered the allegations and found that student A had committed a number of breaches of the provider’s Student Code of Conduct, including sexual misconduct. It decided to terminate the student’s studies and refer him to a fitness to practise process. The student appealed the disciplinary outcome. The provider rejected the student’s appeal and issued a Completion of Procedures Letter.

The student complained to us and we upheld his complaint (we decided it was Justified). We decided that it was unreasonable for the provider to have dismissed the student’s appeal because the disciplinary process had been unfair.

There had been unreasonable delays in the provider giving the student full details of the allegations against him. At the start of the process the student was informed the provider had received multiple allegations against him. But he didn’t receive specific detail or information about the allegations, including who had made them, for eight months. The student was not invited to attend an investigatory meeting at an early stage of the process, in accordance with the provider’s procedures.

The provider told the student he couldn’t contact any current students during his precautionary suspension in case they were involved in the allegations against him. Because the student wasn’t told who had made the allegations, this meant he wasn’t able to contact anyone at the provider for eight months, which had isolated him from friends and sources of support and made it more difficult to provide witnesses in his defence.

The provider had refused permission for the student’s solicitor to attend the panel meeting because it said its procedures didn’t allow students to be legally represented at panels. The provider’s decision wasn’t in line with the guidance in our Good Practice Framework, which says that while students will not normally need to seek legal advice, it is good practice for providers to permit legal representation in complex disciplinary cases, or where the consequences for the student are potentially very serious. The student was studying a professionally regulated course and the allegations against him were very serious, with potential consequences for not only his studies but his ability to register in the profession and pursue his chosen career. The number and breadth of the allegations against the student added to the complexity of the case. None of the information or evidence we reviewed indicated that the provider had considered the seriousness or complexity of the case when deciding to refuse the student’s request for legal representation at the panel. Because we thought the provider had unreasonably refused the student’s request, we were not satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings had been conducted fairly.

Because we had concluded that the process for reaching a disciplinary finding had been unfair, it was not necessary for our review to consider whether the finding was reasonable or if the provider had applied a reasonable penalty. But we did note that the provider hadn’t properly explained why it had applied the most severe penalty and hadn’t demonstrated that it had considered whether lesser sanctions were appropriate.

To put things right for the student we recommended that the provider offer to reconsider the allegations at a fresh disciplinary panel with a further right of appeal. We made no comment about what the outcome of the case might be. We also recommended the provider offer the student £1,000 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in providing him with information about the allegations. We made a good practice Recommendation for the provider to review its disciplinary procedures to ensure students are provided with details of the allegations and invited to an interview at the earliest possible opportunity after the allegations are made, and to ensure that sufficient reasoning is given for its decisions and any sanctions applied.