The Telegraph reports on the grim events at the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge here
“In his independent report into Prof Evans’ whistleblowing claims, the external barrister appointed by Cambridge University said he regretted the length of time that the investigation took and “the effect this will undoubtedly have had on all those involved”. The barrister also raised concerns that several staff members pulled out of providing testimony “over fears they would face retaliation.”
So, this is a department at the University of Cambridge in which members of staff were too frightened to provide testimony to a barrister “over fears they would face retaliation” .
Sometimes it is difficult to find the words …
If you want to know their true feelings about “freedom of speech” then you should hear how they mouth off in calls to leading newspapers for simply daring to cover the topic
Journalists who publish “bad” stories about Cambridge University need courage.
Because Cambridge will ring up the Editor and complain that they have been misrepresented (whether true for not).
A story like Poppy Wood’s in The Telegraph will have been toned down by the Telegraph lawyers so that everything said can be defended in a law court. Something can be true but it may not be substantiated by available evidence — so it cannot be said or published.
Because the University have access to expensive lawyers and are happy to use them.
“Because the University have access to expensive lawyers and are happy to use them”
– Yeah… not true. Actually, they can’t afford decent lawyers any more, and have never followed through on any of their (many) threats
All the university really has is a halfpenny Malcolm Tucker wannabe and we’ve all got stories to tell about that
Thank you for sharing this account and the link to the Telegraph article.
My own experiences with HR and senior management are distressingly similar, and this is very definitely a sector-wide problem.
Despite also being a senior and experienced member of staff (not Cambridge), I was still shocked by how deep the rabbit hole of corruption and abuse was when I was compelled to encounter it (and I still haven’t reached its limit).
On the comparison with the Post Office scandal, this also includes how ‘investigations’ are handled in the sector.
“Retaliation” by whom?
By the black heart of the Human Resources department, the dark source of power
In universities, they are the analogue of the bent & corrupt investigators who stitched up the sub-postmasters
The article quotes a University spokesperson saying “We strongly dispute claims made in this version of events but cannot comment further on ongoing cases. The University takes allegations of bullying and harassment extremely seriously.”
The victims all made applications to the Vice-Chancellor under Statute A IX last year
The rulings in response were tendentious. In particular, the Vice Chancellor’s letters concluded in all cases :
“I will not be taking any further action in respect of this matter which I consider closed.
Best regards,
Debbie”
In other words, the victims exhausted all internal avenues of redress. The cases were closed by the University and are not ongoing.
That is awful. Has she now apologised?
The university seems to take allegations of bullying/harassment so extremely seriously that it can’t function whenever it gets them, whatever the level of seriousness, what’s being done is not working, it may have worked in the past but it’s not working now.
What was published in The Telegraph is not the whole story. There are more extremely damaging facts about the University’s behaviour that are yet to be made public.
Previous Vice Chancellors took a more independent line in looking at Statute A IX appeals.
This Vice Chancellor does not, for whatever reason.
So an important safety check on executive power in the Statutes is falling into abeyance,
From article:
“My problems all started when I intervened on [my colleague’s] behalf. I contacted a prominent figure in the university for help in dealing with the victim… No help was offered. There was not even a droplet of compassion for the victim,” he said.
“As is very common in whistleblowing cases, there was then prolonged retaliation against me. The retaliation caused significant disruption to my work and my mental health. I went on sick leave. Sleep was an elusive luxury [and] I was plagued with recurrent nightmares.”
The astrophysics professor has promised to introduce an ombudsman at Cambridge University to investigate “serious abuses or mismanagement” if elected chancellor.
“The magnificent role the University could play in encouraging greater empathy, diversity, kindness and inclusion as well as public interest in scholarship and learning, is undermined by its poor culture,” he said.
“Culture is set by the people at the top. This is one of things I would change as chancellor.”
The ultimate check on executive power in an employment dispute (with little to no Health and Safety dimension) is Regent house, for example Dr Catherine MacKenzie could ask Regent house to vote on university compliance with an outstanding re-engagement order obtained from an employment tribunal [not in a state of being contested by university in an active legal process] because as the late Prof Ross Anderson’s case demonstrated the decision made in that individual employment case had significant implications for the ability of all permanent academics to secure employment rights compliance from the university & that being the case that particular decision should then have gone through Regent house.
The ultimate check on executive power in a health and safety dispute seems to be more nuanced but in a subset of cases the ultimate check on executive power seems to be the individual raising concerns but there is a series of legal tests to go through before an individual raising the concerns becomes that ultimate check.
The MacKenzie case is discussed here
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/1060.html
Your point that power lies with Regent House is a very good one.
Our understanding is that Prof Ross Anderson versus University of Cambridge has not concluded, despite his sad death. However, the judgment by the former Commissary (the late Igor Judge) is here.
https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/archive/rja14/Papers/commissary-rja14-2023.pdf
Lord Judge’s comments on the matter are very insightful.
Whilst the culture might be set by those at the top, it can be reset by those elsewhere.
If no apology makes it worse because implies after learning the full facts the next decision was to double down on the abuse and become co-participant, rather than retract and correct course
Do not know about this case but that is exactly what happened in my university too
Nobody ever apologises in our university. It’s an admission of guilt. One makes oneself liable.
Apologies are no longer encouraged, even at the simplest level of a dispute, faux pas, misunderstanding. That is how seriously our university takes Dignity at Work.
An apology would take all the fun out of it for HR: escalation and formal processes is where they take control. They’ve already decided who the guilty party is, and what the outcome should be, who will live happily to bully another day and who will be punished, humiliated, threatened and deprived of the most basic forms of natural justice for having dared to speak up.
Policies and processes, on which HR provide advice, will be tweaked accordingly. The same HR individual can arrange an “independent” investigation, draw up the terms of reference, brief the investigator, advise them along the way on any further action and, if useful, even become a witness to the investigation themselves. Any investigation material is of course “securely” stored on a shared drive, so the process can be closely monitored in case additional information “emerges” until it is time to write the all-important outcome letter – at which point the same HR individual will busy themselves again with a draft for whoever has been appointed to sign it as a “Responsible” Person.
Accuser, witness, judge, jury and executioner. All without accountability.
Leave nothing to chance (or common sense of decency). That is how seriously they take it.
https://telescoper.blog/2025/06/17/bullying-at-uk-universities/
Not a solicitor myself so consider this a question rather than advice. But surely the “never apologize” rule can be bad legal advice – no?
In all probability, if someone apologizes for a minor oversight, then that renders them more liable for negligence acts. But – if they acted in a timely fashion and took actions to correct or mitigate the problem -then those things surely weigh in their favor.
By contrast, if someone fails to deliver apology after learning of their mistake that would suggest they earlier acted with intent – plus, any further action after that point becomes an intentional act of harm also.
My understanding is that in most legal system, error + malice makes for far more serious charges than mere error alone. Advising people not to apologise only protects the institution at the expense of staff – no?
lawyers rarely appreciate how many cases never made it to their desks at all thanks to a sincere early apology which defused the situation
Anon – This is precisely my experience too. Although the full extent of such corruption is actually far worse.
HR leadership do indeed (unduly) control *every* part of the process to extract their target from the organisation without due cause. When I witnessed this, I was struck by how every senior manager involved went along with the scam, of which there were many, including the VC and others. There was absolutely no recourse at all for the victim, and zero accountability. This is far too dangerous for all staff.
Of course, the so-called ‘investigators’ are never ‘independent’ (at least not if they really want rid of you). If ‘external’, they will be drawn from audit or consultancy firms, already on the payroll of the HR dept. Or worse. I witnessed a case where a legal firm was brought in clandestinely at the early stage of the extraction process (as they really had it in for this particular whistleblower). This firm was then also contracted to conduct the “independent” dismissal ‘investigation’, and are now representing the University in court! You couldn’t make this stuff up.
And you can assume that any such legal reps on the case are also writing the outcome letters etc (usually because they bear no resemblance to reality – but why would that matter in a system so corrupt…).
When this obvious corruption was queried, the HR response was simply that the ‘investigator has not had any involvement in the case and so we see no problem at all’. I’ll leave it to others to decide if this is extreme incompetence or further wilful harassment, abuse and corruption.
This is 100 per cent correct. That is why the comparisons with the Post Office scandal are so apposite.
Corruption is endemic in many universities. It is inconceivable that those at the top (Registrars, HR Directors, VCs) are not fully aware of this.
Probably. most senior Professors are also completely aware that this is how it all works.
HR leadership cannot see the full range of recourse & accountability processes available to those extracted without due cause or they would already be changing course.
HR leadership should ask themselves which court could they be seeing the “extracted without cause” in, what role could the “extracted without cause” be playing in that court, what laws could the “extracted without cause” be applying & to what legal entities. HR leadership out of the employment tribunal is HR leadership out of its depth.
Have any of the petitioners complained to the Commissary? I know that the (roughly) equivalent figure at Oxford, the Appeal Court, was not afraid of overruling the VC when cases merited it.
The Commissary is Sir Patrick Elias. He made some acute & critical observations on how the University had behaved.
On the most important matter, he ruled that the Education Act (2004) had removed the power of University Visitors (like the Commissary) to rule on employment matters.So he pleaded want of jurisdiction.
The matter is now heading for a month long Employment Tribunal this time next year. It will be quite a spectacle
Are there any statistics on how often the Oxford Appeal Court overruled the VC?
There are no statistics, I’m afraid. It is known the Appeal Court overruled the University (or Council/VC) on two EJRA cases: Galligan and Edwards. Rather unsurprisingly, Council’s immediate reaction was to strip this Court from jurisdiction over EJRA-related matters. As the Court is now unable to adjudicate on this contentious matter, these disputes now end up in the Employment Tribunals. I imagine you’re aware of the Ewart, Pitcher, Candelas, etc. cases.
How much money was wasted by Oxford (or Council/VC) being too prideful to learn from the rulings in the Galligan and Edwards cases? Surely hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions…
Our understanding is that the cases cost millions to defend & were of course lost
I didn’t make an application to the Vice-Chancellor under Statute A IX or complain to the Commissary. I resigned employment for health and safety reasons, resigned my college fellowship & membership of Regent House, renounced my Cambridge PhD degree & resigned membership of the university and therefore it is not possible for me to do this now else I would now do this because both the Vice Chancellor and/or Commissary would have jurisdiction to intervene in my case & that would be a much more straight forward solution as compared to what I am now having to now do just to finish complying with a legal obligation. That said, when I finally worked out the full legal solution to my case, it was then possible to understand why organisations in the UK are having such exceptional difficulties solving these types of cases & it was also possible to identify the errors in thinking that are acting as barriers to these types of cases being solved.
It has happened.
As of today, Cambridge is no longer in the “top 5” list of global universities produced by QS World.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/global-university-rankings-uk-oxford-cambridge-imperial-b2772691.html
This is ultimately what happens when top research teams are harassed, HR ignore complaints, and talented researchers are shut down and forced out.
It doesn’t surprise me Imperial is currently making gains relative to universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. They were forced to make changes such as narrowing the range of salaries for permanent academic staff to put a robust floor in for more junior permanent staff earlier than other places because the cost of living challenges hit them earlier & harder than other places.
Academics in Oxford and Cambridge can also have the extra drag forces arising from : governance dysfunction in colleges & dysfunctional university:college and college:college governance interfaces in addition to governance dysfunction in the central university & dysfunctional school:university and/or department:university and/or school:school and/or department/department governance interfaces.
Imperial is not free of its own significant problems but it did seem to have made some of the key necessary changes demanded by the current environmental conditions before other universities, at least this was my assessment when I interviewed for a permanent academic post at Imperial.
That is very interesting about Imperial. I do think that it is good to be able to highlight these cases where universities improved on the people side in a way that led to better scores on these sorts of rankings too.