Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal is currently hearing an ongoing whistleblowing case.
Prof Neil Wyn Evans is bringing claims against Cambridge University, Prof Richard McMahon, Ms Emma Rampton and Prof Deborah Prentice under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
Cross-examination begins on Monday 8 June 2026. Prof Evans will be cross-examined by Akua Reindorf KC, acting for the University, followed by cross-examination of the Claimant’s witnesses. The Respondents and their witnesses will then be cross-examined by Stuart Brittenden KC.
The Tribunal Judge has confirmed that online access links should be made available to members of the public and the press wishing to observe proceedings remotely. We reproduce the standard instructions:
“Requests from the media and members of the public to observe a hearing remotely should be made in advance to watfordet@justice.gov.uk to allow for inclusion during the hearing set-up. The naming convention in the subject heading of the email request should read “MEDIA OR PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST – AN Other v AN Other – Hearing Date.” (Courtserve website)
We understand that some journalists are now receiving access links.
Please allow up to 24 hours for a response; if issues persist, do let us know. We support the principles of open justice and will work to ensure access for all who wish to observe matters from 8 June onwards.
Commentary on the underlying matters should be avoided until they are presented in open court. Reporting may then proceed in accordance with the principles of open justice.
32 Comments
Unite · 1 June 2026 at 14:19
Confirmed. CVP links to observe remotely have been reported as issued.
If anyone fails to obtain one, please post here for advice on next steps.
We thank the judge and tribunal for their commitment to open justice and the civic right to attend and observe the British justice system in action.
TheResearcher · 1 June 2026 at 15:38
Thanks! I have just received my CVP link!
21percent.org · 1 June 2026 at 15:41
Excellent news
Casey · 2 June 2026 at 07:32
I’ve not received a link yet. I emailed a request last week and sent another one yesterday. Hopefully it arrives today.
Supporter · 2 June 2026 at 08:56
I haven’t received my link to join the tribunal remotely. Can links be shared?
TheResearcher · 2 June 2026 at 09:19
If someone could confirm that those who got the link can share it, I am happy to share mine. Just send me the email address to where I should forward the email I got from the tribunal with the link and instructions.
21percent.org · 2 June 2026 at 09:42
**** EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL LINK FOR REMOTE VIEWING ****
If you have contacted Watford Employment Tribunal & not had a response for the link for 8 June 2026, please send an email to this email address
TribunalLink AT proton.me
We will collate all the email addresses and ask Watford Employment Tribunal to supply the bulk list with the link, or to confirm that they are happy for us to supply the existing CVP link.
Please don’t post the link directly here.
The 21 Group will undertake to ensure that everyone who wants to view proceedings in this Tribunal can do so, in the interests of Open Justice.
The order of witnesses after 8 June is not presently known. Once this is public information, it will be provided.
21percent.org · 2 June 2026 at 09:51
And requests are already coming in !!
TheResearcher · 2 June 2026 at 10:03
Do not forget to send the link to all members of the University Council and the General Board. As this is a matter of major reputational risk to the University, it is ultimately a matter of their responsibility…
SPARTACUS · 1 June 2026 at 14:24
Wyn Evans is clearly a brave hero! He has already won even before the Tribunal decides! Everyone will now know the cesspit UCam has become under two consecutive VCs. It will reveal the gigantic problems within HR and Legal. It might (one has to keep hoping) lead to a ‘revolution’ where the many world leading academics in Cambridge get rid of the oligarchy that has been destroying an 800 institution over the past 8 years or so.
TheResearcher · 1 June 2026 at 14:32
It is funny to see who is the University HR staff currently “Out of Office” until the end of June judging from their automatic messages… How will Cambridge survive without their expert advice?!?!? And what will happen to them at the end of June? We shall see!
ohdear · 1 June 2026 at 14:59
Haha I suspect some of them may be “out of office” for a lot longer than that
Fido · 1 June 2026 at 15:20
I am salivating
Special Friend · 1 June 2026 at 17:33
I am looking for a new owner
minion · 2 June 2026 at 10:24
we need a new mini boss
fury · 1 June 2026 at 15:49
I assume the VC does know about this Employment Tribunal? Given the level of dysfunction, I can imagine no-one has told her.
I mean Gillian Tett (Provost of Kings) read in the newspapers that one of her Fellows is a sex harasser. Completely believable that Prentice will find out from the national press.
TheResearcher · 1 June 2026 at 16:00
I can confirm that the VC and all Fellows of Christ’s College know about this Employment Tribunal.
Astro · 1 June 2026 at 19:49
Everyone in astronomy thinks the university are going to lose this.
So, it looks like a bit of a Hail Mary.
They know they’re sunk, for some reason they don’t want to settle with Wyn, and so the only thing they can do is get a top notch barrister & just hope for the best.
The chance that this goes wrong, really very badly wrong, is huge
The Hard Truth · 1 June 2026 at 20:47
It’s not driven by the university’s interests – only the personal “ego drama” and career goals of the lawyers. They are smarting from last month’s catastrophic climbdown (after telling Pro VC etc for years that everything would “work out fine”), at risk of losing future university business to other firms, and desperate to avoid setting a precedent in a high profile case in which for a long time the reputation of the VC, Legal and Registrary has been at stake. No one gives a fuck about our university and its reputation only their own survival. Like Trump in Iran, like Putin in Ukraine, we are expending resources to save the egos of our leadership, who ultimately will only trash their own legacies along with ours – but two years later, we will left to clean up the damage while they have all moved on.
Flight 19? · 1 June 2026 at 20:55
For UK Universities it’s mainly about prolonging the persecution of a whistleblower for as long as absolutely possible, to deter others coming forward (good luck with that…), and their lawyers making a fortune out of it all. Yes, the tribunal stage itself and the run up to it is part of this campaign. They still think, and maybe even believe, that this is the better strategy rather than admitting error and fixing it early on. Or maybe they’re all under some kind of cognitive tunnelling spell (‘Flight 19’ style – Google it). I just can’t look…
Good night, MH 370 · 1 June 2026 at 22:22
It is not flight 19. The way the university leadership is behsvimg is more like MH 370 – after the first few minutes once the pilot had gone rogue, but before it is too late. At this time, he still knows he could turn around, admit his error, land, and let the passengers survive — but that if he does so, he will be arrested, shamed, and lose his job. So they double down and keep flying until the last possible moment, before plunging the whole craft and everyone on board into the deep blue ocean. That’s where this madness leads.
MUSKETEER · 1 June 2026 at 19:54
UCam has already lost! No barrister can win them public opinion! Wyn Evans will be vindicated! The regime of the American Queen is doomed!
Imagine... · 2 June 2026 at 10:56
Not a flight, not boat, but a pantomime show
It’s called the ugly sisters, the acting’s rather pro
The team in the horse-suit ready to run
The front end writes the script, the rear end puts it on
Funds are limitless, for the show to go on
Signed off by those blind eying the con
When the props drop off at alarming rate
Lawyers are hired, king’s counsels are paid
Defending trapped fingers, trampling hooves and much worse
There’s nothing to see, the show must go on
But why, oh why,
All the carnage, the grief?
The destruction, the scum?
Must you ask? It’s very brief
Playing ugly sisters is really too much fun!
TheResearcher · 2 June 2026 at 11:14
One thing is clear, after this employment tribunal, those in UCam who continue to trust the ugly sisters is because they want. If the ugly sisters remain in their posts after June, they will work in an environment where people know their real character. Their colleagues may continue to be polite, but they will know that they can no longer trust the ugly sisters. Let’s see if the ugly sisters decide to stay in such an environment. Unfortunately for them, they cannot simply become Masters of colleges as others are trying to do, but where will the ugly sisters find a job in Cambridge after this?
Angel · 2 June 2026 at 11:53
Don’t worry, TheResearcher. For all those who have done wrong, but did not face consequences, June will not be the end. It will be only the start of the next chapter.
The Path to Justice · 2 June 2026 at 11:00
Anyone who cares about justice – justice for key worker staff, justice for Palestine, justice for civil society, justice for victims of sexual assault, justice for our Medical School – should obtain a CVP link to watch this case live.
Cross examination starts next week, Monday 8th.
The time for change is now.
Anonymous · 2 June 2026 at 12:50
The previous thread refers to High Court rulings regarding restriction of pro-Palestine marches at Cambridge.
I suspect Cambridge academics are unaware of similar controversies at less prestigious institutions, of which I have a fair amount of information, and would like to share with this group.
You may wish to know, for example, that in 2022, Akua Reindorf led an investigation at Sheffield Hallam University against Dr Shahd Abusalama, a Palestinian academic.
Tribunal documents show that Dr Shahd Abusalama made counter-accusations of direct race and or belief discrimination (issue 4.2), indirect discrimination (issue 5.2(c)), harassment (issue 6.1), victimisation (issue 7.2.2) and whistleblowing (issue 10.1.2). Dr Shahd Abusalama also made accusation of victimisation, on the grounds of not being allowed to see a copy of Akua Reindorf’s report.
Observers of this case at Sheffield Hallam noted apparently inconsistency with the earlier free speech views expressed by Ms. Reindorf, in particular on matters of trans rights.
Reindorf owes her December 2021 appointment as a Commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to Liz Truss.
She was appointed by Truss on account of her strong anti-trans platform – a set of beliefs Reindorf expressed shortly before that date, in her self-titled “Reindorf Review” for the University of Essex in May of 2021, six months prior to the EHRC appointment.
Colleagues at Essex will tell you that this “Reindorf Review” was immensely controversial and damaging — notably for its recommendation that Essex cut all ties with the Stonewall campaign and trans-rights activists. It proved to be an immediate public relations disaster for Essex.
As a result, the University was forced to repudiate the report a mere one month later. In doing so, it apologised to its trans and non-binary staff for the “very negative impact” the report had upon them. It also reaffirmed its commitment to working with Stonewall and publicly repudiated Reindorf’s recommendations (see PinkNews).
Trans-rights campaigners have since repeated called for Liz Truss’s appointment of Reindorf to the EHRC to finally be rescinded, without success.
In the meantime, it seems the University of Cambridge has been one of Reindorf’s key clients instead. She is now deeply involved in (1) defending its implementation of the EJRA, as well as (2) internal confidential grievance investigations, and more broadly, (3) ongoing advice on how the university manages its grievance, disciplinary, and performance procedures.
Unrelatedly, the University of Cambridge has since suspended its participation in the Stonewall campaign. LGBT staff and students have petitioned the Pro Vice Chancellor, Kamal Munir, to reverse this decision.
Clearpath · 2 June 2026 at 13:27
I think I have found the document you refer to.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/660c04d067958c001f365a48/Ms_S_Abusalama_v_Sheffield_Hallam_University_and_Richard_Calvert_-_1802110-2023_-_Judgment.pdf
Let us all note this description of the Dr Shahd Abusalama, the individual against whom our Equality and Human Rights Commissioner conducted her investigation.
“Following the commencement of military action by Israel, the claimant’s family, including her mother, father, brother, his wife and children were forced to flee from the Jabalia Refugee Camp to the Nuseirat Refugee Camp on 13 October 2023… The claimant has lost dozens of members of her wider family and social circle as a result of the conflict”.
I shall make no further comment beyond the fact these facts are not new, but all in the public domain, and that I have no involvement at all in this new case (except, now, perhaps as an observer – if I receive a CVP link on time!)
CuriouserAndCuriouser · 2 June 2026 at 13:24
It is certainly true that Ms Reindorf has strong views on protecting women from men.
So she’s a strange choice for barrister in a case where the victims were all women, allegedly bullied by a male.
Oldhand · 2 June 2026 at 13:41
What concerns me more is some clarification of the exact role played in design and oversight of Cambridge internal grievance procedures. That seems like an obvious potential conflict of interest in this case, given the alleged failures in relation to that matter specifically, and also the need to disclose previous ties to key individuals accused of misconduct, in order to clarify the nature of any (if applicable) prior or expected future business arising from those relationships.
Crassus · 2 June 2026 at 13:51
Thank goodness for that. If we are relying on Liz Truss’s recommendations then surely nothing can possibly go wrong.
Circe · 2 June 2026 at 14:20
In order to assess one’s conflict of interest, and manage it, one would need to have been fully informed about a matter, ideally by – err – unconflicted individuals?