Sexual misconduct accused loses bid to complete university course
A STUDENT kicked out of university after being accused of sexual misconduct during a year abroad has lost a legal bid to be allowed to continue his course and take his final exams.
The undergraduate, who was expelled following an internal investigation into the incident, had sought an immediate injunction against the Russell Group institution.
He claims that since the alleged assault took place overseas, rather than on the university’s premises, their sexual misconduct policy did not apply to him. But the High Court yesterday refused to grant the student an emergency order allowing him to immediately return to the university and continue his studies.
As a result, the case will not be heard in full until May, when another judge will be asked to decide whether the findings of the university’s disciplinary panel should be set aside and the student allowed to continue his education at the institution. The student, referred to as AB, was accused of sexually assaulting a fellow student in 2018, during their year abroad.
The pair had been at a bar with friends before returning to his apartment, where she alleged that after she felt unwell, he lay down beside her on the bed, touched her sexually, stripped her and attempted to have sexual intercourse without her consent.
The court heard she later stated that “she felt unable to prevent what happened to her as a result of her intoxicated state and the effects of the trauma of what was happening”.
AB denied the assault, claiming that they had consensual sex. Following an investigation into the complaint by an independent sexual misconduct investigator appointed by the university, a disciplinary hearing was held into the allegations in October 2019.
AB did not attend the hearing, later arguing that he should have been allowed to have full legal representation. The disciplinary panel concluded that the student was guilty of “serious sexual misconduct” and in breach of university policy, and should be expelled with immediate effect.
Lawyers for the student argued that the incident took place in a “private” setting and so fell outside of the university’s jurisdiction.
Simon Butler, his barrister, also argued that his client did not have sufficient legal expertise to properly defend himself at the disciplinary hearing.
But Paul Greatorex, the university’s barrister, argued that the institution had complied with the requirements of natural justice and that there was no right in law to have legal representation at the disciplinary panel.
Judge Margaret Obi rejected the student’s argument but did rule that there was still some question as to whether AB had been given the chance to receive a fair hearing. A full High Court hearing will be held on May 5.