Commissioned with government backing, the report emphasises the negative impact of these issues on student well-being and institutional reputation. It reflects on a rise in 'lad' culture, a general lack of awareness amongst students of policies tackling unwelcome sexual advances and a tendency by institutions to expect victims to use complaints and disciplinary procedures inappropriate for that purpose.
The situation has not been helped by the fact that the (non-statutory) 'Zellick' guidance for universities on managing student behaviour where it may constitute a criminal offence has not been reviewed since it was issued in 1994. Amongst the more significant legislative developments since that time are the implementation of both the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.
As expected, many of the recommendations made reject the Zellick guidance, saying it focused too much on protecting institutions at the expense of victims reporting incidents. The report also acknowledges issues not previous considered - that the university-student relationship is both contractual and subject to consumer legislation. New guidelines addressing these issues have now been issued.
The advice that universities should not investigate or invoke internal disciplinary procedures in cases potentially involving criminal behaviour, if they are not reported to the police, is rejected in view of the risk of total inaction in some of the most serious circumstances. Instead, institutions are advised that they have the right under their contractual disciplinary regulations to both investigate and, if appropriate, sanction students even if the victim does not report it the police. Similarly, in circumstances where the police have investigated but the CPS either declines to prosecute or proceedings result in an acquittal, institutions are now advised to investigate and dispose of the matter themselves as a breach of discipline.[1]
The upshot of these changes is the need for universities to ensure:
Where alleged victims do report an incident to the police, the advice is consistent with what would be expected - that universities should suspend their own internal response until the case is completed. During that suspension period they should also recognise the duty of care owed to both accuser and the accused, treating them consistently and fairly, avoiding presumptions, and taking steps to minimise disruption and detriment to the full extent possible. If the investigation results in no further action, universities may then commence their own internal response as determined by their published procedures.
Even where a police investigation and/or legal proceedings are underway, it would be possible for a university to commence disciplinary action in respect of other aspects of the case provided doing so would not prejudice the criminal process.
At a wider level, it is recommended that universities should tackle and help prevent violence against women, harassment and hate crime by:
In addition, it has been recommended that UUK should:
Whilst a call for the sector to do more to tackle these issues has generally been welcomed, the report is not without its detractors. In particular, there are those who question how university administrators can be expected to investigate a disciplinary incident involving sexual misconduct without specialist training. Others are critical of the focus on incidents between students rather than between staff and students.
The first UUK conference on this topic was held on 3 November, with more than 160 delegates attending from 100 universities. A similar event has been scheduled for 2017.
[1] Cf. R (on the application of Ramey) -v- Oxford University [2014] EWHC 4847.