In the interests of Open Justice, we provide the following information just issued by Employment Judge Graham for those wishing to follow the Cambridge Whistleblowing Tribunal proceedings online.
Employment Judge Graham has directed that:
“the Hearing on 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 June 2026 will be transmitted by online video to enable observers who comply with the following
conditions to watch or listen to the proceedings:
1.1.1 Observers must provide their full name and email address to the Tribunal by emailing the Regional Tribunal office in advance, quoting the case number if known;
1.1.2 Observers must identify themselves during the hearing by giving their full name when asked by the Judge; and
1.1.3 Observers must conduct themselves appropriately during the hearing, in particular in accordance with any requirements of this direction or instructions of the judge.
1.1.4 Observers who fail to do so will not be permitted to continue to watch or listen to the proceeding”
Please contact Watford Employment Tribunal to request the access link. The email address is watfordet@justice.gov.uk. The case is Evans v Cambridge University and others (case numbers: 3307960/2023 and others).
If you have already contacted the Tribunal but have not yet received a link, please email us at TribunalLink@proton.me.
We will liaise with the Tribunal on your behalf, collating requests from those who have not yet received access. We offer this service in recognition of the Tribunal’s workload, as it is more efficient for them to respond to a single consolidated request.
Employment Judge Graham has also directed that the hearing bundle and all witness statements will be made available electronically.
Accordingly, the bundle and witness statements will be accessible in a non-downloadable, non-printable format from 10:00am on Monday 8 June 2026, and will remain available during each day of the hearing for its duration (or as otherwise directed by the Judge). This ensures that remote participants have equivalent access to those attending in person. We will provide further details of this shortly.
We thank Employment Judge Graham for his commitment to the principle of open justice.
Please note: if you access the hearing and its accompanying materials online, it is a criminal offence to record the proceedings or to take screenshots of the witness statements or the bundle.
50 Comments
Transparency · 2 June 2026 at 15:12
Thank you Judge Graham. My faith in this country is at least partly restored.
May justice be impartial, neutral, transparent and strict.
Jay · 2 June 2026 at 15:22
I’m getting that comforting déjà vu again — the kind where no one’s in charge and we all get front-row seats to a slow-motion unfolding catastrophe. It’s American Queensland.
Singularity · 2 June 2026 at 16:15
Not really slow-motion any more… slow motion was the last 12-24 months!
Now it seems like this is coalescing fast. The mistake they keep making is to think that they can ride out the storm but there are 5, 10 or even 20 years of scandals still yet to surface… each one bringing another 10 stories out that they simply weren’t aware of, or worse, at some point chose to ignore or cover over.
Jay · 2 June 2026 at 16:20
Agreed, this is speeding up.
What’s the Lenin quote: “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”
Callicles · 2 June 2026 at 16:31
True. There’s at least another two years of scandals in the pipeline from CRUK, Pathology, Biology, and the Colleges, and many are just as bad or even worse. The people who saw it coming already left, that’s why the senior leadership is so down on key appointments.
TheResearcher · 2 June 2026 at 17:55
“and the Colleges”
I have a gut feeling that we will hear from St Edmund’s College in the near future judging from the people they hired recently, namely those who simply moved from admin positions in the University to admin positions in St Edmund’s. Someone is moving the players…
21percent.org · 2 June 2026 at 18:13
Clare College is the next one in the firing line … huge scandal to break later this year
TheResearcher · 2 June 2026 at 18:30
The 21 Group could update the series on the fictional doings of the Masters of the Colleges at some point… Who does not miss The Master of St Machiavelli’s College (https://21percent.org/?p=2655)? Remember, he did not need evidence; he knew everything; he was part of the Council…
N/A · 2 June 2026 at 18:43
Clare is nuclear
shame · 2 June 2026 at 20:48
No need for fiction when the facts are this bad
MUSKETEER · 2 June 2026 at 21:00
Wait until things that happened in the SCM become public! Prof Smallman, Prof Teflon (now Master of a College!!!) and Prof ViciousWoman will have a lot to explain!!!
D'Artagnan · 2 June 2026 at 21:59
And this?
https://21percent.org/?p=1890
Kerris Bowles-Ottery also known as Prof Teflon!!!
TheResearcher · 2 June 2026 at 23:24
This smells like a College in King’s Parade 😉
Ssssssh…
Autonomy · 3 June 2026 at 05:25
Cambridge leadership has made the exact same mistake as Putin over Ukraine and Trump over Iran – the mistake of believing that, as a dominant actor, they would have the autonomy to call a halt to the conflict at any future point if they changed their mind. But this was foolish, as once Ukraine and Iran found external sponsors, they developed the capacity to continuously escalate and be rewarded for doing so, materially and psychologically, in a way neither Russia nor the US were able or willing to match. They have lost escalation autonomy in a situation where neither truly held escalation dominance – and this, sadly, is exactly how empires fall.
TheResearcher · 3 June 2026 at 06:36
Cambridge leadership forgot the fact that not every person is driven by money nor afraid of power differences. It seems clear from multiple cases that the reputation managers at UCam do not know how to deal with this kind of power and continue with their standard practices, boosting secrecy and cover up of misconduct. As such practices trigger the individuals mentioned above, they only make the situation worse.
Autonomy · 3 June 2026 at 07:11
Exactly like Putin and Trump. Thinking transactionally, they could not understand the role of dignity, self-respect, empathy or solidarity in human relations. They could not see why other strong actors would voluntarily choose to ally with parties initially weaker than themselves. They could not understand the disgust and disillusionment of their own former supporters. They could not how one by one, those around them would be picked off and exposed. Until the end these people are like Saddam – extolling themselves as they stand on the scaffold – unable to apologize for the pain they have caused.
Eileen Nugent · 4 June 2026 at 13:10
If a person learns ways to kill others in order to kill others, a person fills the world with enemies. If a person learns all the ways others could be killed in order to prevent others being killed, a person fills the world with friends.
What price – to not see your own child die in front of you?
What fear would a person face to prevent it?
Those with the power to fill the world with enemies are often blinded to the existence of a greater power, the power to fill the world with friends.
When people did not know what war was, people did not know war was something that could & should be prevented. Now people know what war is, people know war is something that could & should be prevented.
A country grabs a person off the streets to be put on the frontline in a war to be instantly killed while others in that same country are going into the courts in that country to ask everyone in that country – including the person being grabbed off the streets to be taken against their will to be instantly killed – to uphold their human rights but not the human rights of the person being grabbed off the streets. People know what war is now, it’s where a person is expected to do work to uphold the human rights of a group of people who are not prepared to do any work in return to uphold the human rights of the person.
Eileen Nugent · 4 June 2026 at 13:52
People know what war is now, it’s where a group of healthy people who have never seen each other before are nonetheless forced to shoot each other and medics are forced to watch the group of healthy people shooting each other instead of trying to prevent the group of healthy people shooting each other and to then try to save the lives of the people who’ve been shot and to pretend that this is two countries delivering effective healthcare.
Nobel prize winner Albert Szent-Györgyi had his studies interrupted in 1914 when he went to serve as an army medic in World War I. In 1916, disgusted with the war, Szent-Györgyi used his medical knowledge to shoot himself in the arm, claimed to be wounded from enemy fire, and was sent home on medical leave. He was then able to finish his medical education and received his MD in 1917. He went on to discover vitamin C enabling advancements in healthcare to be made.
Eileen Nugent · 4 June 2026 at 14:46
People know what war is now, it’s where a person who would murder, torture and rape others in the absence of any war state becomes a “hero” to one group of people locked in a war state with another group of people by murdering, torturing and raping the other group of people in the presence of a war state only to then turn around and murder, torture and rape the group of people who held them up as a “hero” when there is no one left in the other group of people to murder, torture and rape.
Eileen Nugent · 4 June 2026 at 16:41
People know what war is now, it’s where one country tries to convince every other country in the world that it cares about the continued existence of other countries in the world while saying and doing things that make it clear it doesn’t care about the continued existence of another country in the world and by making threats to do things that could bring an end to the continued existence of every country in the world.
It is where a country tries to convince every other country in the world to care about its continued existence by saying and doing things that make it unclear whether the country cares about its own continued existence without which its continued existence cannot be secured by any other country in the world.
It is where a country tries to convince every other country in the world that every other country in the world is a threat to it and a threat to them.
Eileen Nugent · 4 June 2026 at 17:08
People know what war is now, it’s where one country asks every other country in the world to help it send its own people into another country to kill others and to be killed by others in order to achieve the aim of preventing its own people from being killed.
Eileen Nugent · 4 June 2026 at 18:51
People know what war is now, it’s where a country grabs a person off the streets – with no military background, who is not matched to a military role and who would never voluntarily join the military – to put them on the frontline to uphold the human rights of every person in the country and if the person is psychologically unable to cope with being put on the frontline, has a mental breakdown and runs away they are shot in the back by others from their own country at which point it becomes clear that what the country was really asking of the person was to uphold the human rights of every person in the country but themselves.
Eileen Nugent · 5 June 2026 at 00:23
People know what war is now, it’s where two countries set up a war zone where the aim of each country in setting up that war zone is the same – to uphold the human rights of every person in the country.
Each country then grabs the youngest, fittest and healthiest people it can find off the streets to send them into that war zone to kill and be killed in order to uphold the human rights of every person in their own country but themselves.
If the two countries start running out of people to take off their own streets to send into the war zone the countries might the go looking for people in other countries around the world who are willing to sell their absolute human rights to the highest bidder in order to be sent by a country into a war zone to kill and be killed in order to uphold the human rights of every person but themselves.
How much money for your article 3 – the right to freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?
How much money for your article 2 – the right to life?
Think of what that money could buy your family – the chance to live in a world where a country can use its money to buy the absolute human rights of a person in order to send the person into a war zone to kill and be killed to uphold the human rights of every person but themselves and where a country can grab a person off the streets to send the person into a war zone to kill and be killed in order to uphold the human rights of every person but themselves.
Petrograd · 4 June 2026 at 14:07
@Autonomy
When they have a thousand open targets, it is astonishing they keep doubling down on war. War should not be left to generals and legal battles should not be left to lawyers.
Raven · 3 June 2026 at 09:00
Who is the “Cambridge leadership”?
Pro-VC Munir, for example, signs messages and letters drafted by Sam and Louise, as Pro-VC.
Has he read them? understood them? factored in conflict of interest? understood the issues and the consequences of “his” decision-making?
Same with the VC. Is she aware of what she sends? Of what she endorses as acceptable?
Same with whoever decides on the “University” position about a scandal, a trial, an Employment Tribunal.
Who decides? In whose name? With what information?
Who takes responsibility?
Monarkhēs · 3 June 2026 at 16:38
Raven asks: Who is the “Cambridge leadership”?
What is astonishing is that most people even within the university do not really know. It took a whole High Court case to learn last year that the decision to block pro-Palestinian marches was made by the so-called “Gold Team” (of the VC, Registrary, Pro-VC and Head of Legal, plus one or two others). There’s no transparency at all over who decides what… even though on paper these things are meant to operate via formal structures and channels.
21percent.org · 3 June 2026 at 10:00
Thanks for all the comments & support
Site traffic is absolutely surging — this week is another site visit record.
Just a quick reminder, please do not comment on events at the Institute of Astronomy in 2021.
Do not name the Second Respondent in the case on this site (even though it is public information).
TheResearcher · 3 June 2026 at 10:12
You should post another 21 Group Statistics in the near future… And take the opportunity to mention how many people asked you to have access to the CVP link. Even I was bombarded with questions about that link and directed them to you.
Early today I was told that the next Council meeting is on July 13 and was asked if this employment tribunal case would have press attention. By July 13 it will be a bit too late to discuss reputation risk about this case 😂
21percent.org · 3 June 2026 at 10:27
What we can say is that many more people read the blog than comment on it!
Grotius · 3 June 2026 at 13:58
Thank you for pointing out not to record proceedings or evidence – and also, to observe judicial proceedings respectfully. I am so glad that there is still someone within the university who cares about legal compliance and the rule of law.
Anon · 3 June 2026 at 15:55
Well said Grotius. And let us please ensure this case is about the practices of university management – and not, I implore us all, that we allow it to descend in to a trivial side-debate about its choice of barrister (however poorly that choice may reflect upon underlying decision-making processes and connections). We should not miss this opportunity to shine a light on ourselves and reflect on ways that we can reform and improve.
21percent.org · 3 June 2026 at 16:15
Exactly. This is why we have routinely redacted the name of the second respondent (whose name is immaterial).
The Tribunal is about the practices of university management.
We should not miss this opportunity to shine a light on ourselves and reflect on ways that we can reform and improve.
This is brilliantly put. And we add it would be better if this were not done in the public arena, but sometimes that is the only way.
TheResearcher · 3 June 2026 at 16:18
I think that with the excitement of Wyn’s case, and what it means for many who had not had the chance to see justice in their own cases, we forgot to remember that live goes on in UCam, and the same practices will continue to be recycled with others:
“My whole body shook as I read the final report. It contained details about my mental health and my medications. It covered my life before the assault, what therapy I’d received and when, my relationships, and my reflections on the damage the police process did to me. It contained details I haven’t even shared with my closest friends. And the decision? No further action. Victims cannot appeal an OSCCA decision, but perpetrators can… My university experience was forever changed when I was assaulted, but it was distorted further by the institutional failures to tackle sexual violence and apprehend perpetrators at this university. ”
https://www.varsity.co.uk/comment/31707
Never Forget · 3 June 2026 at 20:20
In October 2022, Professor Kamal Munir was responsible for the review of the university’s EJRA policy. This was expect to report in June 2023 and vote in Lent 2024.
Campaigners were subsequently dismayed to find that Professor Munir had deliberately “slow-paced” the review, in order that “academics due to be forcefully retired in September 2023 could not expect a vote on the review in time to give them relief” (see: Commissary complaint). Professor Ross Anderson noted the review was in fact pushed even later to report in October 2024 — fully two years after he was appointed to the review — raising the risk the vote would come too late even for the September 2024 cohort.
In his complaint, Anderson showed that this was not “innocent slowness”, but rather, deliberate method.
He remarked how “delay is a standard tactic in the administration’s playbook,” helped along by “the monthly cadence of Council meetings” and referrals “to the HR committee en route to Council.” He concluded “the administration was playing for time by setting up a review group and dragging its feet”. The implication of these observations was that the University, and broader HR Committee under Munir’s leadership, routinely engages in slow-pacing of internal procedures with both i) prior awareness, ii) plausible motivation, and iii) presumable intent of breaking the law.
In order to ensure fair treatment of affected staff, Professor Anderson and colleagues asked for a moratorium on forced retirements. This too was kicked off to a meeting “of March 20th 2023, more than three months later” (Commissary complaint).
What makes such behaviour worse, is the fact that already at this point in time, the University of Oxford’s EJRA had been ruled as unlawful. Munir, therefore, was responsible for a set of provisions, criteria and practices known to be legally non-compliant. He was directly implicated in decisional processes that ensured such non-compliance would continue, and result in harm to staff, in spite of reasonable awareness of acting in breach of the law.
A subsequent letter from 120 professors to the Vice-Chancellor put it succinctly. “Your two predecessors have each delayed tackling the issue, and every further year of delay will unfairly target a new cohort”. Munir’s managerial decisions had resulted in prejudice to staff, in a manner already found to be unlawful at Tribunal, and known to be so.
TheResearcher · 3 June 2026 at 20:47
A key question, of course, is why Professor Kamal Munir is still around and is allowed to do what he does. Why people smile at him instead of confronting him for his recurrent poor behaviour. If someone could highlight any positive thing he has done in the last few years, please let us know because I would be interested to know, and how that compares with the negative things he has been associated with.
@Never Forget, I too will never forget. Professor Munir dismissed, without any investigation, whistleblowing disclosures and safeguarding referrals, to protect senior HR who are now very busy, “Out of Office” until the end of June. And yet, he tell us
“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.”
Professor Kamal Munir, Pro-Vice-Chancellor for University Community and Engagement
xc · 3 June 2026 at 21:20
Munir is the ProVC for Lies.
Twinklestar · 3 June 2026 at 23:49
Silky, smooth, soothing words and lies, like a serial seducer moving from one heartbreak to the next. The university cares about queer and non-binary staff, he says, but won’t pay for Stonewall. The university cares takes all whistleblower reports seriously, but he buries reports of whistleblower retaliation. The university is taking your concerns seriously, he says, but a year, two years later, absolutely nothing has happened, not on sexual harassment, bullying, the EJRA, or anything else. I cannot wait for the day people start posting the email chains and someone finally puts them all together in to a single document for reference for all time. Or a YouTube video of his wonderful words on the bullying policy, interspersed with whistleblower reports of how he handled their complaints.
21percent.org · 4 June 2026 at 06:07
The remarkable Youtube video is here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizOGdQK4tE
Many of the individuals in the video will be making an appearance in person at Bury St Edmunds Tribunal
Make sure you have the CVP link for the Tribunal
TheResearcher · 4 June 2026 at 06:59
This video is a humiliation for all the victims.
Incidentally, they did not invite HR and legal to participate in this masterpiece. This would be a nice addition for a follow up on how UCam takes reports of misconduct seriously. This really is a culture based on deception and I am sorry for those who did not realize it yet.
21percent.org · 4 June 2026 at 07:26
As the scandals become public, the video will be a humiliation for all its participants — especially those whose actions contrast so dramatically with their words. As other posters have noted, there are a lot of scandals.
Foremost among the offenders whose actions do not match their words, as @Twinkelstar eloquently noted, is the ProVC for Culture and Community.
Cloud_Anderson_A7 · 4 June 2026 at 07:55
Emma Rampton served as Registrary from 2017 to 2025 and was not only the University’s chief administrative officer, but also the lead officer under its “Anti-Bribery and Corruption Policy”.
The Audit Committee Annual Report for 2024–25, published in the Reporter in January 2026, reports that “there were two reports of financial irregularities in the University which are under investigation”. This came only days after Rampton’s resignation from the University, and Vice Chancellor Prentice’s notice praising Rampton’s “immensely positive” impact.
The previous year the university paid over £2.5 million to PriceWaterhouseCooper and Deloitte to conduct internal and external audits. The reports informed them of “weaknesses in the system of internal controls” which could “put the University’s objectives at risk”.
In particular, audit reports flagged weaknesses in IT portfolio governance, departmental processes for managing conflicts of interests, key financial controls, as well as procurement dispensations and savings.
Around the same time, pensions commentator Henry Tapper has argued that above-inflation growth in administrative spending since 2017 had cost the endowment an estimated ~£1.06bn.
TheResearcher · 4 June 2026 at 08:46
Weaknesses in “departmental processes for managing conflicts of interests”?!? There is no such a thing as conflicts of interests in UCam. I have been repeatedly told that other members “who have not been involved in the process” will take over in the next stages. It does not matter who they manage, who manages them, and what connections they have with the people involved in the process. If you raise concerns, namely if you ask if conflicts were assessed, how and by whom, you are ignored. This is the real Cambridge that people most often only see when they get themselves involved in a situation. If you push the structure to see how far the misconduct goes, and what they are willing to do, you will understand that it does not have limits.
Organisations that investigate themselves exonerate themselves, but UCam goes the extra mile; it actively seeks out and retaliates against individuals who do not accept these practices, while in parallel publishes videos like those mentioned above or starts “Breaking the Silence” campaigns to deceive those who do not know how misconduct is addressed.
Anonymous · 4 June 2026 at 12:00
I’m always dubious of statements in such reports like “weaknesses in the system of internal controls” [which could] “put the University’s objectives at risk”.
That could easily mean that senior managers and HR are exposing themselves and the University to major litigation because they are not very good at covering things up, thus putting managerial and HR “objectives at risk”.
On the other hand, if we assume that this audit was a genuine attempt to approve matters for all, then one does wonder why a fortune is being spent on such advice for it to be entirely ignored…?
While we are on the topic of external consultancy firms, this just came out:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/corruption-watchdog-launches-probe-university-wollongong
(Btw, compare this with comment from @Jobless here https://21percent.org/?p=2979)…
This is part of a series of government-level inquiries into how some Universities are run in Australia (see https://21percent.org/?p=2896).
The UK really needs to catch up with our Australian colleagues and get our own national inquiries going, with similar headings included.
Oldhand · 4 June 2026 at 12:15
A very good point. One of the most common gripes among management consultants is that companies pay them to tell them things they already knew but could never fix, and then afterwards, continue to not fix them anyway.
Anon · 4 June 2026 at 15:20
“the university paid over £2.5 million to PriceWaterhouseCooper and Deloitte”
Well, it’s all coming out now. Would you have the figures for all the other consultancy contracts? I do not think these were disclosed in specific detail to all of the relevant budgetary committees.
Redacted Goat · 4 June 2026 at 08:31
I play a part in that video too!
But you can’t see me. Of course.
TheResearcher · 4 June 2026 at 08:49
My guess is that you were holding the camera to Professor Nigel Peake in CMS!
Redacted Goat · 4 June 2026 at 09:16
Nothing so glam, sadly.
Hiccupping in the background.
I’d just eaten their conflict of interest policy. To set the scene.
They’d forgotten they had one.
Quite indigestible – should you ask.
- · 4 June 2026 at 09:28
I hope they have a Fraud Act 2006 policy.
Redacted Goat · 4 June 2026 at 12:30
Gulp
I developed PDSD after that one.
Post-digestion – should you ask.
It’s all behind me now. I’m redacted.