Possibly overshadowed slightly by The Ruling, earlier this week the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education has published its annual report and it includes four new case summaries on harassment and sexual misconduct.
These outcomes are likely to be consistent with the OIA’s new guidance on Harassment/Sexual Misconduct, due to be published later this year. Bearing that in mind, I pulled out some of the key themes that are probably worth paying attention to if you’re involved in the response to these cases within your own institution.
Trauma-informed practice is what the OIA expects and not only what good practice recommends
Case Summary 9 is tough to read. A student who reported a sexual assault had to repeat their account multiple times. Caseworkers commented on their memory and the consistency of their account. The decision not to proceed to a disciplinary panel was sent by email. The OIA found the approach was not trauma-informed and was not centred on the welfare of the reporting student.
The complaint was upheld, £3,750 compensation was recommended, and a procedure review was required. The provider had already invested in training and created specialist posts by the time the OIA reported. This was commendable, but the impact on the reporting student could have been avoided.
Beware of inconsistencies in your policy framework
In Case Summary 8, two documents within the same institution said different things about when informal resolution could be used; one required the student’s agreement, the other said the appointed investigator would decide. The inconsistency was enough for the OIA to recommend a policy review and staff training.
Poor communication is a process risk
Case Summary 8 showed a breakdown between the liaison officer and the investigator about what the student had actually asked for. In Case Summary 9, a caseworker went on leave with no handover and the case did not progress for months.
Language matters
Case Summary 11 is a stark reminder that disciplinary processes should use the language of the appropriate internal framework and rules and avoid the language of criminal law. The OIA was critical of the provider finding a student “culpable of the allegation of rape”, particularly as no panel hearing was offered. The provider agreed to restart the process from scratch (a harmful impact for both the reporting and responding parties).
A good process can protect you even when you can’t reach a definitive outcome
In Case Summary 10 the provider investigated a series of harassing messages but couldn’t establish who had sent them. It still conducted individual investigation meetings, gave students the opportunity to review the notes, put proportionate non-contact arrangements in place, and supported all students throughout. The OIA found the process fair and did not uphold the complaints from the students that had been under investigation.
Do these summaries reflect any of your own practice?
- Are your policies consistent with each other as well as with regulatory frameworks?
- Are your staff trained to respond to and investigate disclosures appropriately?
- Do your systems support casework continuity when staff are absent?
- Are you confident that your decisions and findings use the right language?
- Do your current procedures adhere to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness?
I offer trauma-informed investigation training rooted in 20+ years in higher education, as well as investigative services and consultancy all via Campus Resolve
You can contact me via jenny@campusresolve.co.uk
I’m also hosting a free webinar (Trauma-informed disciplinary processes in higher education) on 28 May 2026. You can register at this link.
This post was also published on LinkedIn.