Case Summaries

The provider investigated the complaint under its disciplinary procedures. The provider interviewed both students. Student A said that they reasonably believed that Student B consented to sex. Student A attended a disciplinary hearing with a legal representative after which the provider decided they had breached its sexual misconduct policy and should be expelled. Student A appealed but the provider rejected the appeal.

Student A complained to us. We did not uphold their complaint (we decide it was Not Justified).

We concluded that the provider had followed a fair process and that Student A had a fair opportunity to put their case. This included the opportunity to challenge Student B’s evidence by putting questions to them through the disciplinary panel. It was reasonable for the provider not to allow Student A to cross examine Student B directly. It was also reasonable for it to take into account text messages between the two students soon after the incident and to conclude those messages indicated Student A was aware that Student B had been too intoxicated to give consent. The provider reached a reasonable decision on the balance of probabilities that Student A had breached its sexual misconduct policy by having sex with Student B without their consent, and gave a reasonable explanation for deciding that it was proportionate to exclude Student A, and that a lesser penalty wasn’t appropriate.