The 21 Group pursue policies consistent with freedom of speech and open justice.
From 1–28 June 2026, an Employment Tribunal will sit at Bury St Edmunds. The claimant is Professor Neil Wyn Evans. The respondents are the University of Cambridge (legally styled as the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge) and certain named individuals.
The proceedings are brought under the Public Interest Disclosure Act [1998]. They concern allegations relating to events at the Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, and the subsequent handling of related matters by the University’s Human Resources department.
At this stage, the 21 Group requests that there be no public comment on the proceedings, and that individuals involved are not named or discussed until the relevant material enters the public domain.
Employment Tribunals are generally open to the public and the press. Members of the public and journalists may attend hearings in person, and in many circumstances remotely where permission is granted by the Tribunal. Reporting of what is heard in open court is permitted.
Documents within Tribunal proceedings, including witness statements and hearing bundles, are not automatically public. Material becomes reportable where it is referred to or deployed in open court, or where it is otherwise released into the public domain.
In some circumstances, access to case documents may be granted upon application, in accordance with the principles of open justice (as considered in Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Dring [2019] UK Supreme Court 38).
The 21 Group will report on and comment upon this case strictly in accordance with the principle of open justice and the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations [2013]. Once material is lawfully in the public domain, it may be discussed freely by anyone.
Even where proceedings are held in public, care should be taken to distinguish between allegations and findings of fact, as publication of allegations as proven facts may raise issues of defamation law.
We also take this opportunity to remind readers that comments may be redacted (or even removed) if abusive or potentially defamatory. If you wish to ask for a comment to be examined, please contact us at media@21percent.org.
(Image is courtesy of Xioxox and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license).
27 Comments
TheResearcher · 4 May 2026 at 12:28
Ssssssssh, what happens in the School of Physical Sciences at Cambridge is confidential!
- · 4 May 2026 at 12:39
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act has made it illegal to restrict disclosure of bullying or harassment allegations anyway, though, and there’s no law against saying what is true. Have they been making threats?
TheResearcher · 4 May 2026 at 13:19
“there’s no law against saying what is true”
Yes, there is, it is called “Cambridge Law” and you are expelled if you breach it! 😉
Mel · 4 May 2026 at 14:20
This is a very long period for an Employment Tribunal, 4 weeks! There is a lot of stuff about this matter that is easily findable, just rummage around. Always remember, ChatGPT and Google are your friends
Anon · 4 May 2026 at 14:44
What is utterly perplexing is that they have not settled this case and allowed people to move on. God knows all the academic staff involved would like to (I should think not least of all those who have been shown to have behaved rather less than decently). The whole thing has run for years and years and surely there is nothing new at this point after so many grievances and prior court cases. All that has happened is that lawyers keep running up the tab at the university’s cost.
Spinoza · 5 May 2026 at 08:44
It’s caused by completely misguided lawyerly thought processes. They do it to cause maximum stress and damage for the complainants. They seem not to realise it does maximum stress and damage to everyone, respondents, neutrals, the department and in this case the University.
Glaucon · 5 May 2026 at 09:09
Seems like a case of low quality legal advice. Solicitors are supposed to always put the interest of the client first and that interest is almost always an early and amicable settlement. Hence what most solicitors try to negotiate first. Only the sharks spin things out to the end and then dump their client with the tab.
Raven · 5 May 2026 at 09:18
“completely misguided lawyerly thought processes”
Completely misguided, because they ignore the human element and make no allowance for empathy, for compassion, for the acknowledgement of error, for apology, mediation and forgiveness.
As such, and because they are so extreme, these misguided lawyerly thought processes give rise to even more misguided psychopathic thought processes.
@Anon · 4 May 2026 at 15:33
“surely there is nothing new at this point”
The only positive of not settling this until the point of this tribunal is that new information keeps appearing, having previously been withheld, redacted or otherwise suppressed.
It shows that the behaviour of some (not only academics) is not just “less than decent”; it is quite simply monstruous.
TheResearcher · 4 May 2026 at 16:40
One key question that will emerge at the end of this particular case is what will happen to the people involved that remained employees at Cambridge University throughout all these years and continued to damage the lives of other members, staff and students, namely from the same School. Will they be sacked? And how will that affect their participation in other cases? How will the subsequent “witness statements” from people who will be shown dishonest in this particular case be considered by UCam? I guess we will have to wait and see, but I have the gut feeling I know the answer judging from the behaviour of the current leaders of UCam…
DWH · 4 May 2026 at 18:35
It is one thing to submit false witness statements in a grievance internally – but if they sign false statements to court then that’s a criminal offence, and one that can land a pretty hefty prison sentence. The legal advisers won’t serve that sentence, they can claim ignorance. Only the person who signs the statement and can be proven to have known otherwise.
TheResearcher · 4 May 2026 at 19:43
People who submit false witness statements in a grievance internally do it externally as well; I know at least 10 people from UCam who in due course will do it when the issue arrives the tribunal. They will not have any other choice to cover up what they did internally. They will have to say the same thing. 10-to-1 should give them a pretty good advantage, but for some reason they want all that confidential…
Clink · 4 May 2026 at 20:35
May be, but if it can be proven to have been deliberately false that’s just 10 prison sentences rather than 1
TheResearcher · 4 May 2026 at 22:44
I think the 10 are assuming that the 1 will not go until the end in the tribunal because of his numeric disadvantage and will chicken out, but they are very wrong. There is no money that pays seeing those 10 lying in public in the tribunal.
James · 5 May 2026 at 09:36
Don’t think that logic worked out very well for the university at Bury St Edmunds last week
21percent.org · 5 May 2026 at 10:56
😉 🙂 Careful — no-one should ever know.
Apparently, if a dispute goes on for many years, Kamal Munir is genuinely surprised that anyone knows about it beyond the direct participants.
In fact, many hundreds (possibly thousands) of people know about it in the university and beyond.
can't you hear, can't you hear the thunder · 5 May 2026 at 12:18
10 on 1 and Kamal is surprised.
perhaps we should all take time out and watch entirely unrelated cat videos to relax. Like this one
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=buEJYUnNPr4
TheResearcher · 5 May 2026 at 12:55
Everyone now knows that Kamal Munir dismisses whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals, without any investigation… The situation became so pathetic that they even expelled the victim of that disclosure to protect a person who was involved in damaging the lives of many members of the same School because the victim refused to be silent. And yes, many many people know about this, including the University Council, General Board, Board of Scrutiny and Proctors, among others.
But shhhhhhhh, it is confidential otherwise the student gets in real troubles 😉
SPARTACUS · 4 May 2026 at 18:16
Monstrous behaviour from the UCam leadership will also be exposed when gigantic SCM/cancer research scandal reaches Tribunals and Courts! That case is cataclismic! You wait!
MUSKETEER · 4 May 2026 at 18:31
Prof Smallman must be worried! He knows what he presided over! Prof Teflon is untouchable, but… Prof ViciousWoman has now lost her scientific partner- she must realize everybody will now see she is worth nothing! And she started the whole scandal!
TheResearcher · 5 May 2026 at 09:19
“Cambridge fails to suspend students who threatened to kill classmate over Israel trip”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/05/03/cambridge-fails-punish-students-death-threats-over-israel/
UCam reached the pathetic level…
TheResearcher · 5 May 2026 at 09:24
And guess what, this happed at Homerton College, the College of Pro-Vice Chancellor for University Community and Engagement, Professor Kamal Munir!
“We are crystal clear that harassment and sexual misconduct are unacceptable. We have an obligation to prevent it, and everyone at the University has a role to play. That’s why it’s important that all our staff understand our policies and what is expected of them, including what to do if they receive a report.”
21percent.org · 5 May 2026 at 11:07
Serious actions — such as issuing death threats against a fellow student in WhatsApp chat — are unacceptable & should carry meaningful consequences
For example, this might include loss of the right to College accommodation on simple safeguarding grounds
Still, at least the student didn’t do something really very dangerous, like sending lots of emails. We know the punishment for that is expulsion
TheResearcher · 5 May 2026 at 11:13
I do not think they realized that they are just helping the student who was expelled for sending emails to publish his story in multiple newspapers… Ssssssssh, it is confidential!
Eileen Nugent · 5 May 2026 at 12:24
A person who talks about killing another person in same academic community is not interested in a reciprocal relationship with the other person & is only interested in an extremely non-reciprocal relationship with the other person which could cost the other person their life.
A person who talks about killing another person in same academic community has shown not only are they not willing to work with a community to safeguard the lives of all in that community but that they are also willing to put the life of another person in the same community at significant safeguarding risk.
For there to be a mutual behavioural agreement between two people there must be two people interested in having a reciprocal relationship with each other not one person interested in having an extremely non-reciprocal relationship with the other person which could cost the other person their life.
For there to be a mutual behavioural agreement between two people in an academic community there must be two people who – irrespective of the state of their relationship in normal circumstances – are willing to provide the same minimum level of safeguarding for each other in times of exceptional safeguarding need as each would for all in the same academic community.
What is necessary here is not a mutual behavioural agreement between two people within an academic community. It’s not a case where two people in the same academic community showed they were interested in having a reciprocal relationship with each other or a case where two people in the same academic community previously had a reciprocal relationship with each other & that reciprocal relationship is what has broken down & what now needs a mutual behavioural agreement to be put in place to maintain in a stable state.
What has broken down here is a mutual agreement between one person – person talking about killing another person in same academic community – & an academic community. Issuing death threats in an academic community is completely unacceptable. An academic community can take measures to isolate itself from any member of an academic community issuing death threats against another person in an academic community – measures could include anything from exclusion from college accommodation on safeguarding grounds up to expulsion.
Anon · 5 May 2026 at 12:47
The most shocking part of this story is that a student was subject to death threats, but after reporting the matter to Cambridge police, was told that Cambridge police did not consider death threats against students to be a matter of concern for them.
That is utterly outrageous. Remember, it was only last summer that a Saudi student was stabbed to death in Cambridge – not a death threat, but an actual death. And all of this is happening after two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green, again, not a threat but an actual attack.
There needs to be a full investigation in to this matter at the highest level.
TheResearcher · 5 May 2026 at 12:58
“There needs to be a full investigation in to this matter at the highest level.”
My gut feeling is that OSCCA will suggest Reveles and Ms Ele Wilson!
https://revelespd.co.uk/