Some Reflections on the Tribunal

The Tribunal has ended. The Panel is now considering its verdict. We wish them clarity and sound judgment in their deliberations.

Stuart Brittenden KC (acting for Prof Wyn Evans) made two closing submissions with regard to the ‘protected disclosures’ (or whistleblowing) here and the consequent detriments here. These are public documents. The burden of proof is on Prof Evans for the protected disclosures. If established, the burden switches and it is for the employer to demonstrate that the detriments were not caused by the disclosures. (We remark that an external barrister employed by the University, Mr Jeremy Scott-Joynt, already stated that one of the disclosures was ‘protected’ in his opinion).

We pick out a few points of general interest from closing submissions. First, during the Tribunal, we learned that all letters and outcomes are initially drafted by HR, with little or no involvement from the Responsible Persons. Many of us had already guessed this, but it was surprising how readily this was admitted by many of the University’s senior witnesses.

The group-think analysis has particular salience here in light of the rather surprising evidence given by a number of the University’s witnesses as to who drafted each of the correspondence and outcome letters to C. The evidence consistently confirmed that these were either drafted by HR and/or Legal. 

• Ms Rampton confirmed that others were responsible for producing first draft decision letters (although she checked them). 

• Dr Glover accepted that all correspondence sent to the Claimant was “likely” to have been drafted by someone else, including his decision letters.

• Prof Prentice also confirmed that all correspondence was drafted by either HR or Legal (evidence in chief). 

• Ms Akroyd’s evidence was clearer still. In her witness statement, she explained:  “Further delays are attributed to the level of input required from various members of the University when drafting correspondence. Any correspondence from the senior members of the University, for example, the Academic Secretary, the Registrary or Vice-Chancellor, would not be drafted by themselves in isolation, and would instead be drafted with input from HR, and sometimes Legal Services as well. This is standard practice. In all, this means that multiple members of HR, Legal Services, and the direct recipient were required to consider the correspondence, draft replies, and consider next steps…” There is a good example of Ms Akroyd drafting an outcome letter for Prof Munir in relation to an appeal submitted by Prof Gilmore in the Bundle. Ms Akroyd confirmed that this was “fairly typical” and more or less standard practice.  [Stuart Brittenden KC, written closing submission]

Mr Stuart Brittenden KC followed this up in oral submission by saying: “The decision-making in relation to all decisions remains opaque. We haven’t seen any drafts; and, secondly and materially, there are no notes of any meetings between any decision-maker and HR setting out the decision-maker’s analysis and asking HR to draft it up. Ms Rampton said: “yes, HR did the first draft and I approved it”. She did not say: “I had a meeting with HR, set out my views, and they took them up. However it is analysed, what we have is a very small group of individuals drafting the outcomes and steering the outcomes. Those outcomes neglect or minimise criticism, and the closed nature of the decision-making has, on occasion, led to embarrassment in their evidence – trying to justify the unjustifiable.”

Letters signed by those who do not write them undermines both transparency and accountability. As was seen in the British Post Office scandal, the routine use of letters drafted by others but signed by senior figures became part of a wider systemic failure with grave consequences, including wrongful prosecutions. In that context, correspondence issued under senior management, then civil servants and finally politicians, repeatedly asserted that there were no problems with the Horizon system, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. The effect was not merely procedural: the content was misleading or dismissive of legitimate concerns, amplifying the harm suffered by those affected. This approach diffused responsibility, insulated decision-makers from scrutiny and reinforced a culture of complete institutional denial.

Secondly, there was the way in which the University decided to fight the case. Prof Kamal Munir stated on oath that there was no institutional animus against Prof Evans for raising bullying issues. It seemed to be contradicted by everything that was happening around him. As Mr Stuart Brittenden KC in oral submission stated:

The credibility challenges, on a scale of seriousness, weren’t just mild chipping at the edges; they were integral. If this trial were about institutional mindset, the closing submissions cut very close to the bone for Professor Evans: they make a large number of serious allegations of dishonesty against him.

Professor Evans underwent four days of cross-examination, which were hard and intense — you will have noticed it ran roughly from 10.00 am to 4.00pm each day, a gruelling exercise. It is fundamentally dishonest to suggest [as Ms Akua Reindorf does] that he did not genuinely feel emotion — that he affected tears in order to avoid difficult questions, and that his motivation was to damage McMahon. Ms Reindorf’s statement accuses him of “faking emotion”. These are all highly serious allegations. I appreciate they are put on instruction; but if there is any doubt about institutional animus, that is evidence of it. Professor Evans would invite you to reject those allegations. When he demonstrated emotion, it was only out of genuine concern and immediate distress, and he needed to take a break when it was put to him that he had shed “crocodile tears.” I would say that was inappropriate in this case. [Stuart Brittenden KC, oral closing submission]

In the way it fought the case, the University seemed to demonstrate the very thing that Prof Evans was himself alleging — namely, that he was being punished for raising bullying concerns by a University whose senior figures had come to dislike him intensely. Such ‘character assassination’ was felt by many neutrals (such as the listening journalists) to be over the top and counter-productive. ‘Crocodile tears’ was an extremely unpleasant allegation.

It is assumed that Ms Reindorf was acting on instruction from the Respondents (Legal Services represented by Ms Gardner, Ms Rampton, Prof McMahon and Prof Prentice).