A law student from Reading University, identified as KT, has achieved a partial victory in a judicial review concerning his expulsion. The review examined the actions taken by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA), which is tasked with overseeing student complaints against universities.
KT’s academic journey began in 2016 but was disrupted in 2019 when the university excluded him on ‘fitness to study’ grounds, following personal challenges. Despite these setbacks, KT successfully contested this decision and was allowed to resume his studies, completing his first two years and parts of his final year.
In November 2022, KT’s situation escalated when he was discovered sleeping overnight in a university building and subsequently involved in an altercation in the library, resulting in police intervention. Although the police opted not to pursue further action, the university’s disciplinary committee decided to expel KT, a decision upheld by the appeal committee.
KT appealed to the OIA, which initially criticised the severity of the university’s penalty. The OIA suggested revisiting the matter, potentially offering KT an opportunity to have his case reconsidered, rather than simply upheld by the appeal committee.
However, the introduction of new evidence, including additional allegations of misconduct and stringent bail conditions, led the OIA to revise its recommendations unfavourably for KT. These changes were made without consulting him, prompting KT to argue that the process was procedurally unfair.
Presiding over the judicial review, Judge Jonathan Moffett KC identified procedural faults in the OIA’s handling of the case, notably the lack of opportunity afforded to KT to respond to the university’s new evidence. Judge Moffett condemned the OIA’s actions as unlawful, emphasising the necessity for fairness in the adjudication process.
Consequently, the judge invalidated the OIA’s final recommendations, mandating a resumption of the decision-making process. While KT succeeded in demonstrating unfairness, the majority of his arguments were rejected, resulting in the OIA being ordered to cover only 25% of his legal costs.
This case highlights the complexities and challenges within university disciplinary processes and underscores the importance of procedural fairness in adjudicatory bodies. The High Court’s ruling reinforces the need for transparency and fairness in decisions affecting students’ academic lives.