Case Summaries
Back to Case SummariesHarassment and sexual misconduct - CS042610
Case summary April 2026 | Not Justified
A student reported receiving a number of hostile messages via social media and directly to their mobile phone, which they felt was bullying and harassment. It was clear from the content of the messages that they were written by someone with knowledge of the interactions between students and staff on a particular module. The messages expressed views supporting the physical harm of certain groups of people and caused the recipient significant distress.
The provider carried out a disciplinary investigation. It invited a number of students to attend individual investigation meetings on the basis that they might have knowledge of or be involved in sending the messages. The students were able to send additional information to the investigator after the meeting and they were provided with a copy of the note of the meeting and were able to make comments on this record.
The provider concluded that bullying and harassment had occurred, but it was not able to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that any specific student was responsible for sending the messages. It confirmed that no disciplinary findings had been made. It put in place non-contact arrangements between the reporting student and other students.
The students submitted individual and collective responses to this outcome, on the basis that the non-contact arrangement implied that the students were guilty of an offence; that it was not reasonable for the provider to conclude that bullying had occurred if it could not prove who was responsible; and that the process had been unfair and caused distress.
The provider considered these submissions as an appeal against a disciplinary outcome. It reiterated that it had not concluded that any individual student had breached its disciplinary rules. It said that the noncontact arrangement was not punitive and was protective and preventative, intended to minimise future distress for all parties.
Several of the students made individual complaints to us. We did not uphold the complaints (we decided they were Not Justified). The messages that were reported to the provider were such that it was appropriate for the provider to consider them under its disciplinary processes. We were satisfied that the provider carried out a fair process and offered support to the students it was investigating as well as to the recipient of the messages. It was reasonable for it to conclude that it could not establish the source of the messages. It was a reasonable and proportionate response to try to manage contact between the students moving forward. We were not persuaded that the arrangements were either punitive or had a negative impact on the students’ ongoing experience.