Students accused of rape at university bringing lawyers to hearings

I can see why some of the other posters feel that something this serious shouldn't be up a university committee to decide on. However, universities have a long tradition of independence and self-government. Obviously if it's a criminal accusation and the intention is to prosecute, that's a matter for the police and the courts, but if it's about excluding from a course or a college - that's another matter. I think the problem really is that universities are not properly geared up for quasi-judicial hearings on things like this, expulsion is severe and can have a drastic effect on someone's life chances. On the other hand, so can rape.

Not sure what the solution is, but if lawyers are being brought in at family cost for the rapist, then really the university should be providing legal representation for the complainant as well.

I think for a uni to even attempt to pass such a judgement of guilt is wrong and they should be escalating the matter as a crime, I don't think we can talk about just expulsion here, getting expelled for rape and such is going to have a hell of a knock on effect on someone's life than just the uni course, not trying to minimise the effects of abuses in anyway, just underlining that for an accusation this serious having it done by an unqualified panel with questionable oversight is crazy imo, we have a legal system and principles for a reason surely.

Shouldn't the complainer be paying for their own representation where possible if they want it? If the uni wants to take such an active funding position on the matter it needs to pay for everyone's representation, not one sides (this thread seems to have a presumption that the accused is rich and the accuser is poor) As these unis apparently stress, this isn't a court of law, so there isn't any of this enshrined right to legal representation at someone else's expense, and to me this all just points towards a uni not being the appropriate venue for the complaint.

Having some experience of these things, it's not usually about saying 'they've committed rape', it's about the behaviour around it fitting in with the agreement the students sign up to when they take up their degre eprogramme. So it's a values thing, and about whether there is demonstrable evidence that behaviour around an allegation fits in with those values.

It's not an easy thing and it might sound like I am merely talking semantics, btu the practical differences are sizeable.

No I do get what you mean, I think I'm trying to say that without a credible professional investigation into the events I feel it wouldn't be appropriate or safe for them to establish guilt in any way*, they shouldn't be half in/half out on investigating what would be considered a serious crime by most.

* - there obv maybe be clearly provable violations of a code which would be appropriate for them to judge on as isolated points.

Having some experience of these things, it's not usually about saying 'they've committed rape', it's about the behaviour around it fitting in with the agreement the students sign up to when they take up their degre eprogramme. So it's a values thing, and about whether there is demonstrable evidence that behaviour around an allegation fits in with those values.

It's not an easy thing and it might sound like I am merely talking semantics, btu the practical differences are sizeable.

So if I understand correctly the uni only comment on whether the behaviour of the individuals is in fitting with the values of the institution and not on the question of rape. In this case surely both the supposed victim and the supposed perpetrator could, and some will argue should suffer the same fate, as both may well have been so drunk as to bring disgrace to the reputation of the uni. But this doesn’t appear to be the case when the article is complaining about the legal representation of a supposed rapist, which implies that it is indeed the rape that is being judged by unqualified people in a hostile environment and this is the role of the courts, not academic institutions.

Maybe some of the students who have alleged sexual assaults were committed against them on uni premises or by fellow uni students will also sue the unis alleging victimization, breaches of the unis duty of care or emotional injury arising from mishandling of uni investigations.

A very sad situation. Apparently, money decides everything.

Shouldn't the complainer be paying for their own representation where possible if they want it? If the uni wants to take such an active funding position on the matter it needs to pay for everyone's representation, not one sides (this thread seems to have a presumption that the accused is rich and the accuser is poor) As these unis apparently stress, this isn't a court of law, so there isn't any of this enshrined right to legal representation at someone else's expense, and to me this all just points towards a uni not being the appropriate venue for the complaint.

Uni rape is a real problem, someone in my halls was sexually assaulted on the first night of being there

I'm increasingly of the view that an independent legal review ought to be held, outside the authority of the university, but yes, it's a fair point that I was making an assumption about the relative affluence of the accuser and accused. I suppose if lawyers are being brought in, it's not unreasonable to think the university should pay for legal advice for both parties. It is getting ridiculous though and the reason is clear - extreme steps like expulsion, in response to very serious allegations, shouldn't be in front of amateur bods from university departments.

Tbh I don't feel the uni should be paying anyone's legal fees, it's just not their place, but more making the point that they would need to fund everyone if they chose to be so actively involved rather than pick a side - but that leads to the issue of who is actually making the the complaint, is it the uni or the accuser or both?

In these cases described, we seem to be talking about the uni taking action to possibly expel a student, so the uni vs accused rather than accuser vs accused, so there seems less of a case for the accuser to have an entitlement to equal or paid representation - like if your car is stolen and someone is charged, it's the state vs them, they have a right to representation against the state prosecution, but the victim of the car theft doesn't - (admittedly I'm making some pretty big uneducated assumptions there and prob isn't that simple)

It's widespread, the numbers are bigger than is generally reported because so many don't report, for a variety of reasons, including fear of the process currently being discussed here.

Exactly and the worse thing is some unis try sweeping it under the carpet and some males are the ones denying that there is a rape problem

Using Uni hearings to process what is essentially a very serious allegation against another student is a bit like a 'passive aggressive' way of handling an alleged crime against another student and then using a University tribunal for that perceived insult or injury. it should not be happening.

Uni tribunals should not be used as a forum to make such serious allegations against another student. Uni's are caught in the cross fire of the current baying mob demanding 'justice' or the need to be seen to be doing 'something' against so called 'predatory males'. The UK courts, and lawyers have the experience, knowledge and ability to professionally pursue and deliberate about allegations for which an offender appear at court (allegations which are life destroying)

The police and courts have access to an offenders back ground and any previous reported allegations which a Uni tribunal will never have (unless that information has been made public at some stage) Uni's should be far stricter in their process where sexual assault is alleged. Whilst encouraging victims to seek help, sign posting them to the correct agencies and getting support from SARC's, they should encourage the victim to report the allegations to the police. After there is an outcome following a criminal or civil court hearing Uni's can decide how to manage the evidence and result. Uni personnel should not be used as judge and jury because it is an easier option than going to court. Employment laws cover allegations against employed staff members but this should not be used in the same way for student allegations.

I can see why some of the other posters feel that something this serious shouldn't be up a university committee to decide on. However, universities have a long tradition of independence and self-government. Obviously if it's a criminal accusation and the intention is to prosecute, that's a matter for the police and the courts, but if it's about excluding from a course or a college - that's another matter. I think the problem really is that universities are not properly geared up for quasi-judicial hearings on things like this, expulsion is severe and can have a drastic effect on someone's life chances. On the other hand, so can rape.

Not sure what the solution is, but if lawyers are being brought in at family cost for the rapist, then really the university should be providing legal representation for the complainant as well.

So called predatory males? Not so called, there are plenty of predator males even amongst the uni students

i hear ya; it's a conundrum. ig, in theory, potentially the university could afford a lawyer for the complainant based on principles of natural justice/fairness. but then why should the uni pay the legal fees for the complainant and not the respondent if they can't afford one? i mean it wasn't even the respondent's idea to be there.