Scope

This procedure outlines the steps the University will take following a report of alleged staff misconduct where the matter relates, wholly or in part, to the scope of the Dignity and Respect Policy and it has been agreed to carry out a formal investigation of the matters raised.

This procedure should be applied along with the Staff Disciplinary Policy and Procedure (if the alleged behaviour relates to a professional services / non-academic member of staff) or under Statutes, if the alleged behaviour relates to an academic member of staff or specified senior member of staff.

This formal procedure will be instigated in one of the following situations

• where alleged behaviour is too serious to be dealt with informally
• where the informal process is not completed or
• where the facilitation or mediation agreement is not signed off by the parties*
• in cases where there is a repetition of the alleged behaviour, or it does not cease after the completion of the agreed informal action

*If a confidential mediation or facilitation process is started but not completed or the proposed agreement is not signed off by both parties, the process can move into this formal investigation procedure, however neither party can use statements made or opinions expressed within the mediation or facilitation process as a ground for misconduct.

1. Support, advice and representation

We understand that dignity and respect matters can be challenging for everyone involved. All parties will be made aware of and actively encouraged to engage with the support and advice options available to them.

Staff can access free and confidential counselling and practical wellbeing support through Health Assured.

Staff are encouraged to seek advice from and be represented by an accredited trade union representative or be accompanied by a fellow employee in any formal meetings.

In addition, the Dignity & Respect Liaison Officer or Investigator or Deputy Director of HR or Employee Relations & Resolution Specialist may identify for staff members who are parties to be allocated an individual as a confidential support person, who will normally be from a different department in the University. The purpose of this role is to provide the staff respondent with wellbeing support and to check that they are accessing all relevant support on a confidential basis during any formal investigatory process. It is emphasised that this role is wellbeing focused and is not designed to take on the role of trade union representative or fellow employee and would not accompany them in any formal meetings.

We understand that some staff may need additional arrangements in order to fully access this process which may include reasonable adjustments for disabled staff or an interpreter or other arrangements for staff with limited verbal and / or written English skills. Staff that require adjustments will be encouraged to contact support for interpreting services or other adjustments to be put in place where these are needed.

If any students are involved in matters being dealt with under the procedure, they will be made aware of and encouraged to engage with the student support and advice options available to them, including the Independent Advisors for Postgraduate Research Students, SU Advice and Support and Student Support.

Anyone involved with this process who is both a student and a member of staff may access the support, advice and representation options available to both their student and staff roles.

2. Definitions

The Reporting Party: The person affected or impacted by the alleged misconduct. They can be any member of the University community or an external person. There may be limitations on the information that can be shared with external reporting persons, and they are unable to utilise appeal or complaints options.

The Respondent: The person against whom the allegation is made. For the purposes of this procedure this will be a staff respondent.

Witness: An individual who is asked to provide evidence in relation to the alleged behaviour.

Referring Party: The person that notifies the University of an instance of alleged misconduct, but who is not the person that the behaviour was directed against. They can be any member of the University community or an external person.

3. Roles and responsibilities

Deputy Director of HR or the ER & Resolution Specialist is responsible for:

• setting up an investigator or investigation team, normally made up of a Dignity and Respect Investigator or senior manager or academic and, where relevant, HR Business Partner or Advisor to investigate allegations of misconduct. In certain situations, an external investigator may be organised to carry out the investigation
• reviewing and ratifying case to answer recommendations. In cases where the Reporting Party is a student this is done jointly with the Deputy Director (Student Policy and Safeguarding)
• convening Disciplinary Panel Hearings, in line with the relevant University staff discipline procedures.

During periods of their leave, another suitably trained and experienced member of the HR team may take on this role.

Deputy Director (Student Policy & Safeguarding) is responsible, in cases where the reporting party is a student, for jointly reviewing and ratifying case to answer recommendations with the Deputy Director of HR.

The Assigned Investigator is responsible for:

• investigating the dignity and respect cases assigned to them
• with the Assigned HR Business Partner or Advisor, providing case to answer recommendations for ratification
• with the Assigned HR Business Partner or Advisor, presenting Dignity and Respect cases they have investigated at any formal proceedings under this procedure

The Assigned HR Business Partner or Advisor (“HRBP”) is responsible for:

• supporting the Assigned Investigator with the investigation process, advising on relevant employment policies and legislation
• with the Assigned Investigator, providing case to answer recommendations for ratification
• with the Assigned Investigator, presenting dignity and respect cases they have investigated at any formal proceedings under this procedure

The Dignity and Respect Liaison Officer (DRLO) is responsible for being a consistent point of contact for student parties involved in this procedure. This includes, but is not limited to:

• keeping student parties up to date with the progress of their case (within the bounds of confidentiality) and
• advising HR colleagues on communications with and support for the student throughout the process

The Director of Human Resources (HR) is responsible for receiving and overseeing the operation of appeals through this process.

4. Procedural fairness

This procedure will follow the principles of natural justice. This means the respondent and the reporting party will both have fair opportunity to present their case and evidence. In some circumstances, sensitive and confidential information that is not fundamental to their case may be redacted.

For cases being considered under this procedure the standard of proof is the civil standard, or “the balance of probabilities”. This means it must be proved that something is more likely to have happened than not, and this is supported by evidence. The burden of proof sits with the University. This means that it is their responsibility to prove the case being considered.

No person with a conflict of interest will be asked to investigate or make a decision relating to the case. The University defines a conflict of interest as a set of circumstances that creates a risk that the individual’s ability to apply judgement or act fairly and objectively in a particular case is, could be, or could be perceived to be, impaired or influenced by a secondary interest. This interest might include some personal or working connection to any of the parties involved or their work, such that it could impair their objectivity. Any individual involved in a dignity and respect case must declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest.

5. Criminal offences

Where an allegation that may constitute an offence under the criminal law has been raised by a Reporting Party, they will have the choice as to whether or not to report it directly to the police.

If there is an allegation, which is only raised with the University, but could also constitute an offence under the criminal law, the University may decide to refer this directly to the police if there is a risk or perceived risk to the safety of members of the University community, the University or wider community. In such cases a referral to the police will be discussed with the Reporting Party.

Where an allegation is being investigated by the police any University investigation will normally be put on hold until the criminal case is concluded, to prevent prejudicing a criminal investigation. The University will consider if any precautionary measures should be put in place.

After the police investigation and / or court proceedings have been completed the University will determine whether internal disciplinary action will be taken. Where an allegation has been proven and the Respondent has also been sentenced by a criminal court for the same incident, the penalty of the court will normally be taken into consideration in determining any sanction under the relevant disciplinary procedures.

The University may still proceed with the disciplinary process even if the Courts decide not to investigate an incident or if the Respondent is found not guilty. This is because those determining issues under this Procedure (and the relevant disciplinary policies procedures) must make those judgements on the balance of probabilities, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof required for criminal cases.

6. Precautionary measures

Where there is a risk to some or all the parties involved precautionary measures will be considered and, where they are required, implemented. Precautionary measures put in place should best mitigate risk and protect the parties involved and the university community, whilst enabling a fair investigation to be carried out. Precautionary measures can include, but are not limited to change of working locations, no contact orders, exclusion from areas of campus and suspension.

Where the Respondent is a member of staff, the below process will be followed in line with section 11.2 of the Staff Disciplinary Policy and Procedure or where relevant University Statutes, currently Statute 25 Part III.

It is important to note that such precautionary measures are not a sanction. The University will first consider if there are any alternative options for precautionary measures instead of a precautionary suspension, and any important considerations before making a request for it. This request will be considered by the relevant senior University staff before any decision to suspend is taken. This consideration will review key factors and possible alternatives. Where there is no alternative but to take forward a precautionary suspension process, it will be handled with sensitivity and support will be offered to any individual who is subject to precautionary measures.

If an employee is suspended, their contract of employment will continue in full force and effect; they will be paid at their normal basic pay rate and receive any usual benefits. There are different suspension arrangements for casual workers who will not be engaged for work during a period of suspension.

When staff are on precautionary suspension, they will need the consent of the Director or Deputy Director of HR or a specifically identified delegate should they wish to attend the University’s sites/premises. When meeting with their Trade Union representative or any agreed support meetings/appointments, staff do not need to seek this consent but must inform them in advance of the meeting.

Staff on precautionary suspension will be required to be available to attend meetings and respond to requests under this procedure and the relevant disciplinary procedure. They must continue to report sickness as they would usually do under the Sickness Absence Policy and Procedure and request annual or other leave as required under University’s rules. Information that is shared beyond the Respondent regarding the precautionary measures in place will be determined by a risk assessment, on a case-by-case basis.

7. Procedure for cases where the allegations are made by a student reporting party against a staff respondent

All stages of this procedure will be carried out in conjunction with the staff disciplinary procedure that applies to the Respondent – either the Staff Disciplinary Policy and Procedure or Statute 25 Part III (or as revised).

Where the respondent is a non-academic member of staff this procedure will normally be concluded within 60 calendar days (plus 30 calendar days for any appeals) from the receipt of a formal report wherever possible.

Where the respondent is an academic member of staff this procedure will normally be concluded within 120 calendar days (plus 30 calendar days for any appeals) from agreement to proceed with a formal investigation. This is due to the longer and more complex disciplinary process required for staff who are covered under University Statutes.

If it is anticipated that the process will take longer, all parties will be informed in writing and provided with an amended timescale.

7.1 Formal investigation

The relevant Deputy Director of HR, ER & Resolution Specialist or nominee will appoint a suitably trained and experienced Dignity and Respect Investigator (the Assigned Investigator), normally with an HR Business Partner or Advisor (The Assigned HRBP) to advise and support them. The Assigned Investigator and HRBP will meet to agree responsibilities, and the details of the investigation’s next steps.

The Assigned Investigator and HRBP will meet with the Reporting Party to take a statement and gather relevant evidence. Individuals providing a statement will be given choice where possible in how their statement is taken and will be told how the information they provide will be used and shared as part of this process.

Based on the Reporting Party's statement the Assigned Investigator and HRBP will confirm the specific allegations against the respondent and assess whether there is a case to be investigated. The Assigned Investigator and HRBP will recommend whether there is a case to be investigated, and this will be ratified by the Deputy Director of HR or their nominee.

If it is assessed that there is not a case to be investigated this will be confirmed with the Reporting Party. If it is assessed that there is a case to be investigated the Respondent will then be notified in writing of the allegations against them and will be asked to attend an investigatory interview.

Respondents can be accompanied by a trade union representative or fellow employee (“work companion”) and are required to provide their support person’s name and contact details to The Assigned Investigator and HRBP, normally giving at least three working days’ notice.

The interview will be audio recorded and then transcribed for the purposes of the investigation. All materials will be processed and stored in accordance with the University’s Data Protections policies and the relevant privacy notice.

If the Respondent chooses not to engage with and attend the investigatory meetings, with appropriate notice, the investigatory process may continue without them, including decision making.

Where necessary, the Assigned Investigator and HRBP may also gather further information relevant to the allegation. This may include taking interviewing witnesses / taking witness statements.

All parties are required to submit all relevant evidence at the time of the investigation.

The Assigned Investigator, supported by the Assigned HRBP, will conclude the investigation by producing an investigation report containing all submitted information and evidence relevant to the allegations being considered.

7.2 Determination of a case to answer

The investigation report will include a recommended determination of whether there is a case to answer against the respondent. The test for case to answer is defined as whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a decision-maker could make a finding of misconduct, on the balance of probabilities.

The case to answer recommendation will be made by the Assigned Investigator and HRBP, and the decision will be jointly reviewed and, if found reasonable, ratified by the Deputy Director of HR and Deputy Director of Student Policy and Safeguarding or their nominee if they are unavailable.

If it is determined that there is no case to answer the case is dismissed.

If it is determined that there is a case to answer, the case will be referred to a disciplinary panel to hear the case. The disciplinary panel and hearing will be set up in line with the relevant staff disciplinary procedure, those for staff (e.g. academic staff) who are covered under University Statutes.

The Assigned Investigator and HRBP will notify the Reporting Party and the Respondent of the outcome of the case to answer decision within 10 working days of the decision being made.

7.3 Appeal against a decision of no case to answer

Where it is determined that there is no case to answer, the Reporting Party may appeal against this decision. Their right to raise an appeal and the process for this is set out in section 9. Appeals below in this procedure.

7.4 The disciplinary hearing

If it is determined, through investigation, that there is a case to answer for misconduct, the case will usually be referred to a disciplinary hearing. In the disciplinary hearing it will be heard by University officers as specified in the relevant staff disciplinary procedure. These staff will have received training to make decisions on the cases referred to them.

The Investigator and HR Business Partner or Advisor will prepare the investigation report and relevant evidence items, including redactions where necessary for sensitive information, to be shared with the Respondent and the Panel.

The Respondent will be invited to attend the disciplinary hearing, given the notice as specified within the relevant staff disciplinary procedure and will be encouraged to be represented by an accredited trade union representative or accompanied by a fellow employee (“work companion”), who was not in involved in the incident/s investigated.

The Reporting Party will not usually be required to attend the hearing; however, they will be enabled to attend wherever possible, taking the following factors into account

• whether their attendance will support a fair and full hearing of the case
• their ability and willingness to attend without undue impact on their wellbeing
• the Respondent’s right to test the evidence presented in the case

Where a Reporting Party does attend a panel hearing, suitable adjustments and safeguards will be put in place to ensure they feel safe and respected throughout the process, whilst also ensuring that the rights of the Respondent to a fair and full hearing are not compromised. For example, any questions the Respondent has may be submitted in writing and / or put to the Reporting Party via the panel or a designated representative, rather than directly.

The Reporting party will normally receive a redacted copy of the report.

The Assigned Investigator and HRBP will attend the Disciplinary Panel Meeting to present the case, answer any questions on it from the Respondent and their representative and the members of the disciplinary hearing panel members and HR adviser. Subject to the staff disciplinary procedure followed, they will also have the opportunity to ask questions of the respondent, and also to the reporting party and any witnesses, if they are called to the hearing.

The Disciplinary Panel will consider all the relevant evidence and will ask questions of the relevant attendees to clarify points to help them in their decision making.

7.5 Decision and outcomes

Following the Disciplinary panel meeting, the panel members will determine whether or not the behaviour of the Respondent constitutes misconduct. Where misconduct is found the panel members will then determine the level of misconduct and then the disciplinary sanction/s to be applied under the applicable staff disciplinary procedure.

The chair of the disciplinary hearing panel will write to the Respondent in line with the relevant disciplinary policy to confirm the outcome from the disciplinary hearing, including detailing any disciplinary action issued and any other actions recommended by the panel. This letter will include details of the right of appeal against disciplinary action for the staff respondent, where disciplinary action is taken.

The reporting party will normally be informed of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing on a confidential basis; however, the information that is shared beyond the Respondent will be determined by a risk assessment (undertaken between HR and Student Policy and Safeguarding), on a case-by-case basis.

Where applicable the DRLO will liaise with the Respondent and the Reporting Party, HR and the Student Policy and Safeguarding team with the aim of agreeing measures to facilitate future work and study arrangements. This may apply regardless of whether misconduct was found by the Disciplinary Panel.

8. Procedures for the formal investigation of allegations made against a member of staff by a staff reporting party

Following the confirmation of the approach and next steps from a report and / or triage meeting, a formal investigation will begin into the alleged misconduct. All stages of this procedure will be carried out in conjunction with the staff disciplinary procedure that applies to the Respondent – either the Staff Disciplinary Policy and Procedure or Statute 25 Part III (or as revised) and will also follow the principles and processes within this Dignity & Respect Policy and Procedures.

8.1 Setting up the formal investigation by a Dignity & Respect Investigative Panel

For reports made by a staff Reporting Party against the behaviour of a staff Respondent, an Investigative Panel will normally be appointed by the Deputy Director of HR, Employee Relations & Resolution Specialist or their nominee (“DDHR”). This will normally consist of:

• a senior academic or professional service member of staff with the skills and knowledge to investigate the reported matters who are from outside the Department/ Faculty / School of the Reporting Party and the Respondent, acting as the Chair supported and advised by
• an HR Business Partner or Advisor or other senior member of HR who does not cover the same Faculty / School / department as the Reporting Party and Respondent

Please note there may be situations where the skills and knowledge of the members may take precedence over where they are working, provided that they have had no prior involvement with the matters under investigation.

The DDHR will ensure that those appointed to the Investigative Panel have training and experience and have had no previous involvement with the case and no conflict of interest (see section 5 above for definition).

The DDHR will write to both the Reporting Party and the Respondent to confirm the appointment of the Investigative Panel, informing them of their right to raise concerns about a conflict of interest of a member of the Investigative Panel within 5 working days of the names of the Investigative Panel members being confirmed to them.

In some cases that fall under section 8, the University may choose to appoint instead an external Dignity & Respect Investigator to undertake the formal investigation. An external investigator may bring skills, independence and / or expertise that may not be available or cannot be released internally.

8.2 The formal investigation

The purpose of the Formal Investigation is to gather and consider all the relevant facts and documents in relation to the allegations made, including undertaking interviews of the witness(es), Respondent, Reporting Party etc. if applicable. The Investigative Panel will be expected to maintain sufficient contact with the Reporting Party and the Respondent (both of whom will be expected to respond to requests to contact the Investigator(s)) to make sure they are kept up to date with the process.

The investigation process will normally start with the Investigative Panel interviewing the Reporting Party who will be encouraged to be represented or accompanied by an accredited trade union representative or a fellow employee. The Reporting Party will not normally be required to attend the Disciplinary Hearing but could be called by the Disciplinary Hearing panel if further evidence from them was required.

The Investigative Panel will contact the Respondent in writing as soon as possible, informing them of the claims made against them, requesting their attendance at a meeting, and encouraging them to be represented or accompanied by a trade union representative or other work companion / fellow employee.

The Investigative Panel (or any individual given this specific wellbeing role) will ensure that the Respondent and the Reporting Party are each given the opportunity to access options for support such as Health Assured, our employee wellbeing and support provider to help maintain their health and wellbeing throughout the formal investigation and process.

The Investigative Panel will normally need to interview the Reporting Party, the Respondent, and any relevant witnesses in order to carry out a full and fair investigation. The respondent, reporting party and witnesses who are staff can choose to be accompanied by a trusted work colleague or an accredited trade union representative and will also be offered support from Health Assured, our employee wellbeing and support provider. Student witnesses may be accompanied by a fellow student, an The Independent Advisor Service for Postgraduate Research Students or an SU advisor (e.g. from the SU Advice and Support Service ) and will be offered support. Formal notes of these investigatory meetings will be taken by digital recording and transcription in line with GDPR requirements.

8.3 The completion of the formal investigation

On completion of their investigation the Investigative Panel will produce an Investigation Report. This will explain their investigation, present the evidence found and findings made and advise if they have found that:

• there is a case to answer for misconduct by the Respondent or
• there is no case to answer for misconduct by the Respondent

The Investigation Report may also include and confirm in writing any recommendations that the Investigative Panel have identified. This may include options for one or both parties such as training, mediation, counselling, transfer or possible change in the reporting relationship (including PhD supervision) if the working relationship has become untenable.

The Investigation Report will be provided to the Deputy Director of HR (DDHR), who will review the report, consulting with other senior officers as required under specific procedures (e.g. as specified by Statute 25 Part III for academic staff).

If a case to answer is found the case against the Respondent should be referred to a disciplinary hearing under the staff disciplinary procedure that applies to the Respondent – either the Staff Disciplinary Policy and Procedure or Statute 25 Part III (or as revised).

The Investigative Panel will contact the Reporting Party and the Respondent separately to inform them of the main elements of the investigation’s findings and to communicate its outcome. This will normally involve providing them with a confirmation of the outcome in writing along with a copy of the report of their investigation.

Where no case to answer has been found the report will normally be provided without any appendices (including notes of investigatory meetings etc.). The Reporting Party and the Respondent has the right to request this additional information, which will normally be provided after the other party has been informed.

The Investigative Panel may choose to meet separately with the Reporting Party and / or the Respondent to explain the outcome of their investigation, in which case the parties will have the right to be accompanied to this meeting by a fellow employee (“work companion”) or a Trade Union representative.

Appeal against no case to answer - Where the Investigative Panel have concluded that there is no case to answer for misconduct against the Respondent, the Reporting Party may have the right to appeal the decision as set out in section 9 of this Procedure below.

8.4 The disciplinary hearing

Where the Investigative Panel conclude that there is a case to answer, the allegation(s) will be considered under the University’s staff disciplinary procedures that apply to the Respondent – either the Staff Disciplinary Policy and Procedure or Statute 25 Part III (or as revised). The DDHR or nominee will ensure that a disciplinary hearing is set up with a panel as required by the disciplinary procedure with at least 5-working days’ notice.

In this situation, the Investigative Panel’s report and the evidence collated during the investigation (e.g. notes of Reporting Party, Respondent and witness interviews) will form the Investigative panel case for the disciplinary hearing. The Investigative Panel will present the case at the disciplinary hearing and be cross- examined on their evidence.

If after full consideration by a disciplinary hearing, a misconduct is found to have occurred, the University will take the appropriate level of disciplinary action against the Respondent, up to and including summary dismissal. The Respondent will have a right to appeal against this decision in line with the University’s Disciplinary Policy and Procedure or Statute 25 Part III.

When formal disciplinary action is taken against the Respondent, the Reporting Party will be advised on a confidential basis that disciplinary action has been taken. A risk assessment will be made on the level of information that can be provided to the Reporting Party on a confidential basis, in line with the University's duty of care to all concerned.

8.5 Following up from the outcome of the formal process

When all of the investigation, hearing, appeal (if made) and follow-up processes have been completed, and the Reporting Party and the Respondent need to work closely together and/or within the same work area, further actions may be necessary. In this situation, it may be necessary for adjustments to be put in place to facilitate a positive ongoing work experience. Subject to the outcome of the formal process, it will normally be the Respondent who is moved, if the allegation(s) made against them has been upheld by the investigation and hearing process.

Other actions such as facilitation, mediation and / or other appropriate interventions (e.g., training, coaching and additional monitoring / supervision) may also be undertaken to improve the working relationship between the Reporting Party and the Respondent (or other parties).

Where it is suspected that a Reporting Party, Respondent, witness, their representative / work companion, or the Investigative Panel have been bullied, harassed, victimised or discriminated against as a result of the allegation (or its investigation), this may be investigated as a further potential act of misconduct under this and the relevant Disciplinary policies and procedures of the University.

9. Appeals

This section applies to all appeals under both section 7 and section 8.

9.1 Appeal by Reporting Party against the outcome of a Formal Dignity & Respect investigation

Where the outcome from the formal investigation finds that there is no case to answer in relation to misconduct, and the staff or student Reporting Party disagrees with the outcome of the formal investigation, they may in certain circumstances raise an appeal with the Director of Human Resources within 10 working days of the receipt of the letter confirming the decision.

In their appeal letter, the Reporting Party must identify the evidence on which they are basing their case, which must link to at least one of the three overarching grounds below:

1. That there was procedural error in the conduct of the relevant process which may have caused doubt as to the determination reached.
2. That new evidence has been made available which the Reporting Party could not reasonably have provided during the relevant investigation process.
3. That there was bias during the relevant process which that may have caused doubt as to the determination reached.

The Reporting Party may request additional documentation from the Investigative Panel where appropriate to assist their decision whether to appeal or not. This request should be responded to in a timely manner (e.g., normally within 48 hours of accessing the request, provided that the information is readily available).

Where an appeal letter is received within the required timescale set out in this section above and which relates to at least one of the grounds 1 to 3 set out above, an appeal hearing will be set up.

The Director of HR will decide if the appeal made meets the grounds for an appeal. The appeal will be considered by an Appeal Panel of two senior staff members with no previous involvement in or conflict with the case, appointed by the Director of Human Resources. The panel will normally be advised by the Director or Deputy Director of HR or an HR Business Partner / ER & Resolution Specialist who has had no previous involvement in or conflict with the case and who will provide procedural advice to the panel.

If the Reporting Party is a student, then the Director of Student Policy & Safeguarding, or the Deputy Director (Student Policy and Safeguarding), will be a member if the Appeal Panel, provided that they have not been involved in the investigation.

The Reporting Party has a right to be represented by an accredited trade union representative or accompanied by a fellow employee if they are a member of staff or represented by an appropriate advisor (e.g. Students’ Union Advisor or Independent Advisor (“IA”) for postgraduate research students, etc.), or accompanied by a fellow student, if they are a student. The Respondent will be informed that the Reporting Party has appealed against the outcome from the formal investigation.

The Appeal Panel will hold an appeal hearing in which both the Investigative Panel and the Reporting Party and their trade union representative or fellow employee for staff or The SU representative / advisor / IA or fellow student for students, will be invited to attend.

During the appeal hearing, the panel will review the decision of the Investigative Panel against the grounds raised by the Reporting Party. The normal process for the appeal hearing will involve the Reporting Party presenting their case first, followed by the Investigative Panel with opportunities for cross-questioning from each other and the Appeal Panel. The Investigative Panel and the Reporting Party, or their representative, will have an opportunity to sum up their case at the end of the hearing.

The Appeal Panel will inform the Reporting Party in writing of their final decision usually within five working days of the date the appeal hearing, setting out the reasons behind their decision. The outcome letter will be copied to the Respondent.

The University internal procedure is complete at this point. The decision shall be final within the policies and procedures of the University. Student Reporting Parties will be issued with a Completion of Procedures letter and be made aware of their options regarding the Office for the Independent Adjudicator.

The Reporting Party is not able to appeal the outcome of a Disciplinary Hearing. Student Reporting Parties may use the Student Complaints Policy and Procedure if they wish to raise a concern about the case.

9.2 Appeal by Respondent against the disciplinary action taken

If a Respondent wishes to appeal the outcome of formal disciplinary proceedings, they may do so under the relevant staff discipline procedure. They will be informed of their right to appeal when the outcome is communicated to them.

Reporting Parties are not able to appeal the outcome of a formal disciplinary hearing. However, if the Reporting Party is a student and they have concerns about how the case for handled, for example in relation to the procedures followed, they can raise a complaint under the Student Complaints Policy and Procedure.

10. Malicious or vexatious reports

All reports regarding misconduct related to harassment, bullying discrimination and / or victimisation will be treated seriously. The possibility of malicious or spurious reports is recognised and if a reasonable concern of this is raised regarding the Reporting Party’s conduct, it will be investigated formally under the University’s Staff or Student Disciplinary procedures.

If from this investigation deliberate malicious or vexatious reporting is found following consideration by a disciplinary hearing, this may lead to disciplinary action being taken against the Reporting Party, which could be up to and including the summary dismissal / expulsion of the Reporting Party.

It is important to emphasise that if an internal investigation or a criminal prosecution does not find the accused person guilty, it does not automatically mean the person(s) making the allegations was doing so in a vexatious manner.

11. Ill-health or other significant situations occurring during an investigation

For each of the formal processes outlined below, where the Respondent, the Reporting Party or witness is unable to attend due to ill-health or other serious reasons (e.g., bereavement of a close family member), all reasonable efforts will be made to re-arrange the meeting and any adjustments will be considered. However, an investigation cannot be unreasonably delayed for health reasons and will have to proceed within a reasonable period.

12. Confidentiality

The University will treat all reports made / concerns raised under this Policy and Procedure in a sensitive and confidential manner, subject to legal requirements.

Where there is a need to share this information, for example if the Reporting Party, Respondent and/or other members of the University community are at risk of harm or to a funder or UKRI where there is a requirement to report under the UKRI’s Preventing harm (safeguarding) in research and innovation policy this will be

• provided only to those who require the information and
• wherever possible there will be discussion/communication with the person whose information it is, prior to sharing that information with the specified individuals.