Investigating the Untouchable

Imperial College London has a formal zero-tolerance policy on bullying and harassment. Like many universities, however, that policy is hardest to enforce precisely where power is greatest: among the senior leadership team.

Professor Alice Gast was a chemical engineer who served as 16th President of Imperial College, London from 2014 to 2022. The President is the Chief Executive Officer, who acts as the Vice Chancellor. She was at the time the most highly paid Vice Chancellor in the United Kingdom.

Prof Gast recently passed away from pancreatic cancer. A generous personal tribute is here, whilst an assessment of her scientific and leadership qualities is here.

During the events described below, she would likely have been in the early stages of the illness that ultimately killed her. Revisiting this episode is not an exercise in condemnation, but an attempt to understand how institutions can — and sometimes must — respond to misconduct near the very top.

In June 2020, an independent investigation into allegations of workplace bullying and misconduct was opened at Imperial College, focusing on Prof Gast, her Chief Financial Officer Muir Sanderson, and her Chief of Staff Amanda Wolthuizen, following whistleblower complaints. The investigation was carried out by Jane McNeill KC of Old Square Chambers. Her Report is the primary document about the bullying inquiry in the public domain. It was only released in heavily redacted form by Imperial College following a decision by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The key findings from the investigation were that Alice Gast bullied at least one subordinate and Muir Sanderson bullied at least two. Amanda Wolthuizen was exonerated. The report described a culture at senior levels involving favouritism, exclusion, disparaging comments and lack of respect.

Reflecting on the findings, Prof Gast said

“It was personally devastating for me to find that my behaviour fell short of both the College’s and my own expectations and that it had affected a colleague in this way. I repeat my sincere apologies. I pledged to use the experience as a catalyst for positive change for both me and Imperial. In the two years since these events took place, I have worked hard to ensure that my colleagues feel fully supported as we all contribute to improvements in the College culture” [Alice Gast, quoted here]

Muir Sanderson resigned his post, whilst Alice Gast remained until the planned end of her contract (mid-2022).

The central question raised by this episode is not what happened, but how the investigation happened at all. This is a subtle but crucial point.

Prof Gast was extremely powerful as President of Imperial, but she was not the ultimate authority. Two governance features mattered. First, Imperial Council, not the President, is sovereign. Imperial College is governed by its Council, chaired at the time by Lord John Allan. Council has legal responsibility for employment matters involving senior officers, institutional risk, charity-law compliance, and regulatory oversight. Allegations against a President cannot be handled through routine HR channels without exposing Council itself to legal risk.

Secondly, by 2020 universities were operating under the Office for Students’ “fit and proper person” regime, amid much sharper scrutiny of governance failures following scandals elsewhere in the sector, including at Sussex, Warwick, and Liverpool Universities. Senior misconduct had become not merely a reputational concern, but a potential regulatory and trustee liability.

What made this case different from the many bullying allegations that never become investigations is that the complainants — who were other members of the senior management team — escalated outside normal Human Resources (HR) channels. Standard HR routes are easily neutralised when senior leadership is implicated. Here, the complaint was escalated to a level where HR simply could not ‘manage it away’. The complainants must have been senior professional services staff members or senior academics with access to the Council. There must have been multiple complainants.

Not merely were the complainants credible, the complaint itself was procedurally credible — the allegations were specific (dates, meetings, conduct) and evidence exists beyond hearsay (emails, witnesses, contemporaneous notes). This was an actionable employment law risk

If Council did nothing, they risked: whistleblower retaliation claims, charity law breaches including actions for mismanagement by trustees and regulatory intervention. Council acted by commissioning an independent KC to investigate. It was the only defensible option that insulated Council personally from liability.

The investigation was not an act of courage so much as an act of institutional self-preservation.

Although the investigation found bullying, the outcome also shows the limits of accountability. The President remained in post. Sanctions were minimal. Transparency was resisted until forced by the ICO.

The investigation happened not because Imperial College suddenly became ethical, but because not investigating suddenly became more dangerous than investigating.

We believe this episode has lessons for other universities where there has been misconduct at senior levels. And we will return to this matter in our Christmas posting.

(The image is a public domain still from ‘Citizen Kane’)