Reading University law school: Student had completed most of his course
A law student has won a partial victory in a judicial review challenging the recommendations of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), an independent body which reviews student complaints about universities.
The High Court heard that the student, referred to as KT, was expelled by Reading University last year following an “altercation” in its library.
Jonathan Moffett KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said that as a result of his decision, the OIA’s “would need to resume its decision-making process”.
KT began his law degree in 2016. His studies were interrupted for personal reasons and in 2019 the university excluded him on ‘fitness to study’ grounds.
He successfully complained to the OIA and he was allowed to continue his studies. He has completed the first two years and several of his final-year modules.
In the early hours of 20 November 2022, he was “found sleeping in a room in one of the university buildings in circumstances that indicated he was staying there overnight and that he had caused some damage”.
Three days later, he was involved in “an altercation” with a member of staff and two security guards in the university library. The police were called and KT was arrested, but the judge said “it appears that the police subsequently decided to take no further action”.
KT was suspended and the university’s student disciplinary committee expelled him, a decision upheld by the student appeal committee.
KT complained to the OIA, which in a decision sent to the parties for comment on 2 November said it was not satisfied that the committee had provided “clear and sufficient reasons for the severity of penalty applied”.
It set out various recommendations for how the matter should proceed.
However, the university then asked the OIA to consider new evidence, namely further “alleged incidents of misconduct” which had led to the police arresting KT and releasing him on bail.
His bail conditions included not calling university staff or students, not making “any contact” with the university and not entering the county of Berkshire.
The OIA changed its recommendations in the final decision, which it said were to accommodate the bail conditions. These were accepted by the university but rejected by KT, who was not consulted about the changes.
KT argued, in his judicial review, that the OIA’s initial proposed recommendations were more “advantageous”, partly because his case would have been remitted to the disciplinary committee, which could have considered his sanction afresh, and not to the appeal committee, which could not.
Judge Moffett rejected two elements of KT’s judicial review but upheld, to a “limited extent”, the third, which argued that the process by which the OIA decided on the final recommendations was procedurally unfair because KT “was not afforded an opportunity to comment on the university’s representations on the proposed recommendations”.
Judge Moffett found that the OIA acted “unfairly, and therefore unlawfully” by not providing KT with the university’s letter, “or at least the gist of it”, about his bail conditions and “affording him an opportunity to comment on that part of the university’s representations which maintained that it was impossible to comply with the proposed recommendations”.
KT said the police had indicated that the bail conditions could be amended.
Judge Moffett quashed the OIA’s final recommendations and said the OIA “will need to resume its decision-making process in order to decide on final recommendations and thereby complete the review”.
On costs, while KT had been successful, “the vast majority” of his points were unsuccessful. The OIA was ordered to pay 25% of his costs.
Leave a Comment