Cases involving the handling allegations of harassment and sexual misconduct by Universities continues to hit the news. They are clearly difficult issues for Universities given the competing duties owed to both the reporting individual and the alleged perpetrator and the inevitable sensitivities around the nature of these matters.
Cases involving the handling of allegations of harassment and sexual misconduct by universities continue to hit the news. They are clearly difficult issues for universities given the competing duties owed to both the reporting individual and the alleged perpetrator and the inevitable sensitivities around the nature of these matters.
In 2020 the Office for Students (OfS), the Independent Regulator for Higher Education in England, launched a consultation setting out a proposed statement of expectations for prevention of harassment and sexual misconduct, and expectations for addressing it when it occurred. The consultation was paused owing to the pandemic but was relaunched in February 2021.
The guidance from the OfS indicated that universities should:
Notwithstanding this guidance, the BBC reported in May 2021 that women from 15 universities had signed a letter calling for a mandatory policy. They said that allegations of sexual assault were often mishandled by universities and it was not compulsory for them to implement a specific policy to deal with allegations of sexual assault. Indeed, the OfS indicated that meeting the expectations set out in the guidance is not directly connected to enforcement of providers’ conditions of registration.
Irrespective of any mandatory provision however, in light of the continued focus on this issue there is clearly scope for negative publicity for any higher education provider that does not handle such allegations properly. In addition, there is a risk of litigation not only in relation to the alleged offence itself, but also in relation to the handling of the complaint. But perhaps most importantly, dealing with these issues properly is, put simply, the right thing to do.
The application of some general principles when responding to an allegation of harassment or sexual misconduct can assist:
The first point to be clear about is the difference between an internal disciplinary process and a criminal process. The processes are different in terms of their nature and scope and also the potential outcomes, and it is crucial to maintain a clear distinction between them.
The second principle is to ensure that when an allegation is presented, no assumptions are made and that support is provided to both students.
Generally, a student reporting alleged misconduct which may also constitute a criminal offence, should be advised on their options which are generally to:-
If the student does report the matter to the Police then generally the criminal investigation will take precedence ahead of any internal disciplinary investigation given the possibility that an internal process could interfere with the criminal investigation.
Notwithstanding any criminal investigation however, the university will need to consider precautionary actions which may include placing conditions on the accused student not to contact the reporting student, excluding the accused student from certain areas, (for example accommodation blocks) or, depending on the severity of the incident could include consideration of suspending the accused student. It is however crucial to ensure that these precautionary measures are not indicative that any conclusion has been drawn in respect of the allegations. Clearly the need for and reasonableness of any precautionary measures will need to be considered on a case by case basis.
Following any criminal investigation, even if the allegations are not upheld, the university will still wish to consider whether there has been any internal breach of discipline which requires investigation. Alternatively, the reporting student may only wish the university to undertake a disciplinary investigation. Clearly the standard of proof in respect of an internal process is the ‘balance of probabilities’ (i.e. 51% or more) as opposed to the criminal standard of proof which is ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. It is however important to ensure that criminal terminology is not used when considering an internal disciplinary process. For example the university cannot make a finding about whether a rape occurred as only a Criminal Court can make that finding, however the university can consider whether there has been sexual misconduct.
The investigation should of course be carried out by somebody independent and appropriately trained, and the investigation should determine firstly whether the alleged facts and matters occurred, on the balance of probabilities; whether those facts and matters amounted to a breach of discipline in accordance with the Student Code of Conduct and if so, the level of seriousness of the breach of discipline and what sanction should be imposed.
Inevitably, the range of sanctions available to a university carrying out an internal investigation are limited, and it is sensible to manage the expectations of the reporting student so that they are prepared for the types of findings that may be made, which will clearly be different to those which can be imposed via the criminal process.
Any investigation, whether criminal or internal, will be difficult for both parties involved and so sufficient welfare checks and support should be put in place and reviewed carefully throughout the process to ensure that they are sufficient and fair. Perhaps less obviously, consideration should also be given to what support and/or measures should be put in place after the outcome of the investigation. Again, this will need consideration on a case by case basis.
These are difficult issues to deal with, and particularly so having regard to the impact of social media. Online harassment and abuse is a growing issue and in addition, social media posts can also interfere with investigations. Advice and guidance to students around social media interactions also need to be carefully handled as there is clearly a fine line between ensuring the fairness of an investigation to both parties and what could be misconstrued as restrictions on freedom of speech.
There is potential for a challenge around the way in which the university have handled an investigation which in itself could cause distress to either party, quite separate to any injury or distress caused by the incident itself. This can of course give rise to a civil claim for damages. In addition, be mindful that subject access requests for disclosure of information and documentation gathered in the investigation process may be made. Alternatively, other organisations involved with the university may wish to scrutinise the process for handling these issues. In light of these potential ‘knock-on’ consequences, it is imperative to document the investigations that are being undertaken, the information gathered and properly record any decisions made and the rationale behind them in order to be equipped to deal with any subsequent challenge that could arise.
There’s been little evidence of interventions or financial management reviews this year and it appears the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) has re-focussed on financial delivery. It’s also telling that there were no discernible changes to the reporting of financial irregularities in the Academies Trust Handbook 2022.
The Children’s Commissioner, Rachel De Souza, has recently published a report “Beyond the labels: a SEND system which works for every child, every time”, which she intends to sit alongside the DfE’s SEND Review (2019) and SEND Green Paper (2022) and which she hopes will put children’s voices at the heart of the government’s review of SEND system.
There’s greater opportunity than ever for parents, carers and guardians to voice any concerns they have relating to their child’s education and for their concerns to be heard and to be taken seriously. While most staff in schools and academies are conscious of their legal duties relating to complaints management, many are struggling to cope with such a significant increase in the volume of complaints they must manage.
We’re pleased to collaborate with Lloyds Bank, who recently asked us and audit and risk specialists Crowe UK to offer guidance that academy trusts would find helpful when considering setting up a trading subsidiary.
The DfE has published new guidance and opened the application process for window two of the Trust Capacity Fund (TCaF) for 2022/2023, with a fund of £86m in trust capacity funding focused particularly on education investment areas.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was established in March 2015. We now have its report. As you would expect with such a broad scope, the report is long and makes a number of far-reaching recommendations. In this article, Dai Durbridge highlights seven of the 20 recommendations, sets out how they could impact on schools and suggests what steps to take now.
Browne Jacobson’s education team has been named as winner of the ‘Legal Advisors to Education Institutions’ category at the Education Investor Awards 2022 for a record sixth time.
Since the new Suspensions and Exclusions Statutory Guidance was published, we have received a lot of questions about the use of managed moves. For the first time, the Statutory Guidance does explain what a managed move is, but in relatively broad terms and does not cover the mechanics of how a managed move should operate.
Over 3000 young people from across the UK and Ireland took part in a virtual legal careers insight event, aimed at making the legal profession more diverse.
Holly Quirk, an associate barrister in Browne Jacobson’s Manchester office, was awarded the Legal Professional of the Year Award at this year’s Manchester Young Talent Awards.
The risk of assault against staff is, sadly, something that all schools need to consider carefully. Here one legal expert explains what they can do to protect staff and ensure they fulfil their duty of care.
Browne Jacobson’s education team has again been confirmed as a national powerhouse after securing five Tier 1 rankings relating to Education in the latest edition of Legal 500 and maintaining a Band 1 UK-wide ranking for Education in Chambers & Partners UK 2023.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
In this article we set out the criteria, expectations and support schools should consider if notified they fall within this new category.
The words “Grammar schools” are once again being whispered in government and the question of whether the creation of new grammar schools will finally be implemented as a central focus to DFE policy has re-surfaced.