2014, Term 2, Issue 3

Page 1

WWW.BADGERONLINE.CO.UK

BADGER

THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF THE STUDENTS’ UNION

FREE

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

3 MARCH 2014, WEEK 7

THE

Scan to find us online

@TheBadgerNews /thebadger.ussu

LETTERS

Personality over a piece of paper Page 7

COMMENT

‘Slur campaigns should be banned in student elections.’ Page 11

SCIENCE

Sussex pioneers breakthrough research

Page 12

TECH

Are you addicted to your phone?

Page Page13 3

ARTS

A one night stand with Nymphomaniac Page 14

Collapsed hearing cost £18,154 Figures expose costs of January hearing exceeds that of claimed damages while QC brands fresh tribunal a ‘devious new tactic’

Jack Williams News Editor Legal provisions for the collapsed January disciplinary hearing of four Sussex students have cost The University over £18,000 - approximately £4,000 more than it was alleged was incurred in damages by the students’ actions. The bill, issued to the University for legal advice and solicitor fees in the run up to the 17 January hearing, totalled £18,154. The hearing was dissolved on the day following allegations that the panel’s chair had a history of bias against the students. The University insisted that during the course of the autumn occupation of Bramber House, the four students committed transgressions costing up to £13,890, including both damage to property and loss of trading. These figures emerge as the University announces it will recommence its disciplinary action against the four students, who stand accused of “disruptive activities” during last term’s occupation, in a rescheduled hearing later this week. The new hearing will convene at the Brighton and Sussex Medical School on 6 March, but after initiating “Schedule A” of the University disciplinary regulations, the students will plead their case to a Head of School, and not to a three-person disciplinary panel. Each of the four students will be summoned to present evidence for 90 minutes and, if judged to have contravened student regulations, could face a maximum fine of £250. In accordance with Schedule A regulations, the penalty of expulsion if found guilty is removed from consideration, but students are barred from being accompanied by defence lawyers to argue on their behalf. Geoffrey Robertson QC, who repre-

Stefan Filby sented three of the ‘Sussex Five’ at the January disciplinary hearing, criticised what he called a “palpably unfair” decision to deprive the students of their right to legal representation. “This devious new tactic by the University is an abuse of process and places these students in double jeopardy. Instead of doing the decent thing and dropping all charges, they are trying to save face by putting them through a process that does not permit them legal representation. “This is so palpably unfair that it is a matter for despair that these people can be in charge of an important university that should be a community of scholars. Surely any sensible administration would now let bygones be bygones, drop the case and let the students get on with their studies.” Immediately following the January hearing, Robertson pledged to act as the accused students’ legal representative

again if the University embarked on another round of disciplinary proceedings. Dismissing claims that the students have had their legal right to representation withdrawn, a University of Sussex spokesman stated: “It is not the case that any right to legal representation has been withdrawn. It is a long-standing provision of the discipline regulations agreed by the Student Discipline Committee and Senate that the presence of lawyers for this level of disciplinary case is not necessary or appropriate. “Students can have support with them (e.g. a friend or a Students’ Union rep) but that person does not speak on their behalf. “This is a normal part of the disciplinary process at Sussex, and the University typically has some 15-20 cases heard by Heads of School each year.” The disciplinary hearing in January was postponed after it was alleged by several Sussex academics and the student’s

legal representatives that Michael Davies, Pro-Vice Chancellor and chair of the panel, was biased, due to an interview he gave to a local radio station on behalf of the University, condemning the Occupy Sus-

sex group. Davies resigned from chairing the panel following these allegations. Students’ Union elected officers requested an emergency meeting with University officials after the hearing collapsed in a bid to convince management to put a stop to disciplinary proceeding. Kelly McBride, Students’ Union President, said: “We have sent the University a list of questions relating to the new disciplinary. They mostly request the reasons behind the change in disciplinary process, ask why students can no longer have legal representation considering the interest in the hearing, and ask how the University will be ensuring this process is fair, given the outcome of the previous panel. I think it’s safe to say this development raises a lot of questions”. Asked whether Students’ Union representatives are intending to accompany the students to this week’s hearing, she added: “This has not yet been discussed with the students concerned, and they have not yet consulted our Advice & Representation centre, although there is certainly a willingness from Officers to attend in a supportive role”.

URF RELAUNCH SPECIAL PAGE 3


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.