On 29 June 2012, the Septemviri heard Owen Holland’s appeal against his rustication for seven terms, the original punishment imposed on the PhD student for his participation in a protest against David Willetts MP that took place in November 2011. The sentence was reduced to one term, while the guilty verdict was upheld. Jeremy Prynne, a senior member of the University who attended the appeal hearing as an observer, responds to this outcome here.
For some context to this case, see below; and also here for the perspective of a University Officer on the situation. A ‘Discussion’ on the subject was held in the University on 24 April 2012. A record of what was said can be found here.
An official record of the first court proceedings involving Mr Holland was leaked to the student press. A link to a .pdf version of the full document was sent anonymously to CACHE, and is available here [the student newspaper The Tab published the document in full: it is therefore considered by the editors of this blog to be in the public domain].
Documents revealing parts of the University disciplinary process against Mr Holland were released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 some weeks ago, and can be read here.
______________________________________________
INDEPENDENCE ≠ ABSOLUTION
by Bruce Beckles
In the prosecution and sentencing of Owen Holland, the University has repeatedly pointed to the independence of individual University Officers (the University Advocate [1]) or statutory bodies (the University’s Court of Discipline [2]), as though this somehow absolves it not only of all responsibility for their actions, but also of any duty to remedy those actions should they be faulty. From a legal point of view, this is nonsense: should legal proceedings (whether criminal or civil) be initiated in response to the actions in this case of the University Advocate or the Court of Discipline, it is the University one would expect to be the respondent and to be held liable by the court.
Even the quasi-judicial Court of Discipline implicitly acknowledges this: the case before that Court was “University of Cambridge v Mr O Holland” not “Dr R Thornton v Mr O Holland”. Furthermore, as the complaint against Mr Holland was made by the Proctors, the University’s own Ordinances make clear that in prosecuting the case before the Court of Discipline the University Advocate was acting on behalf of the University. The relevant section of the Ordinances reads:
If a charge arises from a complaint made by the Proctors, the Advocate shall be responsible for presenting the case on behalf of the University. [3 - emphasis mine]
Indeed, the idea that an institution is legally responsible for the actions of those it has empowered to act on its behalf when they are carrying out their duties is hardly a new one: employment tribunals are only too familiar with this principle. If a Head of Department were to go around “independently” victimising members of staff, would the University really claim before an employment tribunal that it was in no way responsible? (If so, no wonder the University prefers to settle when staff and former staff haul it before employment tribunals.)
The Court of Discipline and the University Advocate receive their authority from the Statutes and Ordinances of the University. The University is unequivocally responsible for its Ordinances [4] and, subject to Privy Council approval, for its Statutes.[5] To say it is in no way responsible for the behaviour of bodies and individuals empowered under statute would be like the government claiming it was in no way responsible for the prosecution and sentencing of homosexuals under anti-gay legislation. We would not hesitate to reject such claims out of hand where a government was concerned, and we should not hesitate to do so where the University is concerned, either.
And even if the University Advocate and the Court of Discipline have somehow “gone rogue” – which the University seeks slyly to imply by distancing itself from the official actions of its Officers and Courts – it is still within the University’s power to curb their excesses and remedy any wrongs they have committed. Specifically, the University Council could lay a Grace [6] before the Regent House [7] overturning or commuting Mr Holland’s sentence, or changing the Statutes and Ordinances under which the Advocate and the Court operate. (Such a Grace would, of course, be subject to Regent House approval, so if the Regent House failed to approve it then, and only then, would the Council be able to say it was not responsible for what had happened. Since, however, as far as anyone outside the Council can tell, this has not even been attempted, the Council should most certainly be held accountable for what has happened thus far.)
Finally, the Vice-Chancellor has the power under section 5 of Statute K [8] to nullify any action taken by a person or body operating under statute if he believes they have acted in violation of the Statutes, Ordinances or Orders.[9] So if a credible case can be made that the Advocate or the Court were acting in violation of the University’s Statutes and Ordinances then it is directly within the Vice-Chancellor’s power to remedy the situation. As far as I’m aware there hasn’t been a detailed examination of the actions taken in Mr Holland’s case to see whether any were in violation of the Statutes and Ordinances – and, of course, it should be remembered that the Human Rights Act 1998 requires the University’s Statutes to be “read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the [rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights]” [10], rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly (since the University’s Statutes are “subordinate legislation” for the purposes of that Act [11]).
Thus not only is it unreasonable for the University to imply or claim that it is not responsible for Mr Holland’s prosecution and sentencing, but we should also all be aware that remedy for these actions lies well within the University’s power, and may even lie directly within the Vice-Chancellor’s power. The supposed independence of the University Advocate and the Court of Discipline do not absolve the University of responsibility, and they most certainly do not leave it incapable of correcting the injustice its Court has inflicted upon one of its students.
BRUCE BECKLES is a member of the University’s governing body, the Regent House; a University Officer; and an elected member of the University’s Board of Scrutiny from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2015.
________________________________________________________
[1] http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/4534
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/mar/14/cambridge-student-ban-protest-david-willetts
[3] Regulation 2(b) of Ordinances, Chapter II, UNIVERSITY COURTS,
Initiation of proceedings before the University Tribunal, the Court of Discipline, or the Summary Court (Statutes and Ordinances 2011, p. 200): http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2011/chapter02-section18.html#heading2-23
[4] Section 1 of Statute A, Chapter II (Statutes and Ordinances 2011, p.
5): http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2011/statute_a-section2.html#heading2-2
[5] The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/13-14/33
[6] A Grace is a motion for decision presented to the University’s governing body, the Regent House. See http://www.cam.ac.uk/univ/works/graces.html.
[7] Section 1(e) of Statute A, Chapter IV (Statutes and Ordinances 2011, p.
7): http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2011/statute_a-section4.html#heading2-4
[8] Statutes and Ordinances 2011, p. 70: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/so/2011/statute_k-front.html
[9] Roughly speaking, Orders are Graces of the University which do not directly modify the University’s Statutes and Ordinances.
[10] Section 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/3
[11] As the University’s Statutes are made under the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1923, they fall into category (f) of “subordinate legislation” as defined in section 21(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/21
_____________________________________________
28 March 2012
Dear Vice-Chancellor,
We deplore and condemn in the strongest possible terms the harsh sentence of rustication for seven terms imposed on Owen Holland after his conviction for ‘impeding freedom of speech’.
In imposing this sentence, the Court of Discipline has brought the University into disrepute. We note the negative publicity in broadsheet newspapers, in respected political magazines, and in other national and international media. In these circumstances, it behoves the Council to take prompt action to remedy this situation on behalf of the Regent House and other concerned members of the University.
The unreasonable severity of the sentence has destroyed our confidence in the Court. We think this case calls into question the University’s own procedures for administering justice; we therefore call for a review of the processes used by the Court of Discipline, in order to guarantee that they are as transparent and as fair as the University’s members require.
It is essential that the University leadership make clear to our students, academics and other staff – past, present, and future – that public protest is a legitimate activity. Irrespective of individual opinions regarding the protest action itself, the punishment of Owen Holland will cause untold damage to the long-term vitality and independence of the University community, particularly the student body. This is unacceptable.
We demand Owen Holland’s reinstatement with immediate effect.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Maike Albertzart
Dr Anne Alexander
Dr Lori A. Allen
Dr Anna Alexandrova
Dr Joanna Appleby
Dr Houshang Ardavan
Dr Hugues Azerad
Dr Debby Banham
Professor Emeritus Zygmunt G. Baranski
Dr Tim Bayliss-Smith
Dr Felicitas Becker
Mr Bruce Beckles
Dr Duncan Bell
Dr Elizabeth Boyle
Dr Rowan Boyson
Dr Nicole Brisch
Dr Brendan Burchell
Dr Bill Burgwinkle
Dr Christopher Burlinson
Dr Hero Chalmers
Dr Jean Chothia
Dr Sophia M. Connell
Dr Joanna Craigwood
Dr Devon Curtis
Mr Will Davies
Dr Lucy Delap
Dr Ben Etherington
Dr Alexander Etkind
Dr Lorna Finlayson
Dr Felix Fischer
Dr Bernhard Fulda
Mr Christophe Gagne
Dr Sinéad Garrigan Mattar
Professor Raymond Geuss
Dr Josip Glaurdic
Visiting Professor Thomas Glave
Professor Heather Glen
Dr Caroline Gonda
Dr Priyamvada Gopal
Dr Susanne Hakenbeck
Mr Ronald Haynes
Dr Adam Higazi
Dr David Hillman
Dr Catherine Hills
Dr Edward Holberton
Dr Sarah Houghton-Walker
Dr Jana Howlett
Dr Michael Hrebeniak
Professor Emerita Mary Jacobus
Ms Mary Jennings
Dr Arthur Kaletzky
Dr Johannes Kaminski
Dr Ilias Kazanis
Professor John Kinsella
Dr Mary Laven
Dr Sian Lazar
Dr Jessica Leech
Dr David Lehmann
Dr Marsha Levine
Dr Eugene A. Lim
Dr Alyce Mahon
Mr Allan McRobie
Ms Sarah Monk
Revd Richard Lloyd Morgan
Dr Clément Mouhot
Dr Subha Mukherji
Dr Jonathan Oppenheim
Dr George Oppitz-Trotman
Dr David Orton
Dr Anastasia Piliavsky
Mr J. H. Prynne
Dr Sophie Read
Dr John Robb
Dr Josh Robinson
Dr James Riley
Professor Simon Schaffer
Dr Jason Scott-Warren
Professor Emeritus Anthony Snodgrass
Dr Marie Louise Stig Sorensen
Mr Peter C. J. Sparks
Dr Mikhail Spivakov
Dr Adam Stewart-Wallace
Professor Azim Surani
Dr Zoë Svendsen
Dr Deborah Thom
Ms Isobel Urquhart
Dr Marcus Waithe
Dr Sheila Watts
Dr Steve Watts
Dr Alex Webb
Professor Andrew Webber
Dr Daniel Wilson
Dr Nicolette Zeeman
Dr Andrew Zurcher
[This letter was sent to Vice-Chancellor Boryziewicz on 28th March 2012. To date no reply has been received.]
___________________________________________________
Dr R Thornton
University Advocate
University of Cambridge
Emmanuel College
Cambridge
7th March 2012
Dear Dr Thornton,
We understand that a student has been charged with “recklessly or intentionally impeding free speech within the Precincts of the University” in connection with the protest action which took place at Lady Mitchell Hall on the 22nd of November 2011 when the Minister for Universities and Science Mr David Willetts was scheduled to speak.
We regard the prosecution of a single junior member of the University as arbitrary and wrong: we wish to point out that this was a collective act and that we the undersigned were all involved in it – whether directly or indirectly, actively or in a supportive capacity. We therefore ask that the same charge be brought against each of us before the appropriate University court.
Yours sincerely,
RA Alexander
R Arnott-Davies, CC
M Barford, T
N Bazin, K
MB Beckles, K
D Benjamin, T
A Booth, R
RE Bower, CL
R Braude, PEM
S Carlo, CHU
A Diver, CC
CR Doherty, JN
A Odin Ekman, W
BK Etherington, CHU
L Finlayson, K
JB Frances, K
R Geuss
A Gilligan, JN
P Gopal, CHU
S Haf, HOM
M Hrebeniak, W
K Jenkins, EM
J Katko, Q
JV Kinsella, CHU
S Langsdale, K
M Laven, JES
A MacDonald, K
L McMahon, K
L McNulty, HOM
TJ Miley, DAR
M.J. Morey, F
G Mulligan, G
C Mouhot, K
D Morris, CC
F Musallam, JN
G Oppitz-Trotman, JN
O Oriogun-Williams, CL
B Patrick, N
C Page, SID
T Phibbs, K
JH Prynne, CAI
JE Riley, W
A Ring, N
LW Roberts, JN
J Scott-Warren, CAI
H Sillitoe, K
A Shahvisi, DAR
GM Stevenson, FITZ
S Stillwell, G
F Taylor, JN
I Urquhart, HOM
W Yaqoob, PEM
CH Walker-Gore, SE
J Whitfield, K
H Warner, CTH
A Wood, T
AE Zurcher, Q
Also see a variation on this letter published in response to news of Owen Holland’s sentence (third letter down): http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-life-in-the-city-piranha-tank-7575733.html
And leaked copies of the University responses to date: http://tinyurl.com/8xvyv4v
____________________________________________________
Cambridge
February 21, 2012
Dear Vice-Chancellor,
It is our understanding that, following a complaint lodged by the Proctors, the University has initiated disciplinary proceedings against a student for ‘impeding freedom of speech’ in the course of a protest action against the Minister for Universities and Science, Mr David Willetts, which took place on November 22, 2011 at Lady Mitchell Hall.
Although the event at which Mr Willetts was to speak was cancelled, over fifty senior members of the University issued a statement in which they agreed that ‘given the destructive policies of the present government, enacted without due consultation, we believe that the disruption of the Minister for Universities’ address and the subsequent occupation [were] proportionate and justified actions’. Therefore we again call on the University authorities not to persecute those involved in the protest; and ask that the University strike a more appropriate balance between protecting its members’ rights to freedom of assembly and association and the right of others to freedom of speech.
We wish also to express grave concern that one individual is being singled out for disciplinary action when a great many members of the University, both junior and senior, were involved. In the circumstances, we deplore the decision to prosecute one individual as either arbitrary (and so inherently unfair), or as an attempt ‘pour encourager les autres’ (and so itself an attack on freedom of expression within the University). By choosing to proceed in this way, the University has embarked on a course of action which could reasonably be supposed to intimidate this individual, and which therefore represents a failure of the University’s moral duty to them.
Finally, we are also concerned that the University seems to hold both photographic and audio-visual records of parts of the protest, as well as of individual members who were present, and that it is not clear whether this material was collected in a manner which accords with the restrictions and obligations imposed by the Data Protection Act 1998. We are further troubled that the collection of this sensitive personal data might be indicative of a move towards a ‘surveillance culture’ within the University. We believe that such a development would be incompatible with freedom of expression within the University, and with the general expectations of its members.
We believe these are serious issues, and that a failure to address them in a timely manner will damage the University’s reputation. In particular, we ask that the decision to punish this student be reconsidered. Given the exigency of this issue, we look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
Yours,
Dr Anne Alexander
Dr Anna Alexandrova
Dr Maike Albertzart
Dr M Atature
Dr H Azerad
Dr Tarak Barkawi
Dr Debbie Banham
Mr Bruce Beckles
Dr Duncan Bell
Dr Rowan Boyson
Dr Pam Burnard
Ms Sarah Cain
Dr Sophia Connell
Dr PJ Cunningham
Mr Will Davies
Dr Elizabeth Duignan
Dr Ben Etherington
Dr Lorna Finlayson
Dr Linda Fisher
Dr Alex Flynn
Dr Christophe Gagne
Professor Raymond Geuss
Dr Priyamvada Gopal
Dr Boris Groisman
Dr Jochen Guck
Mr Jeremy Hardingham
Mr Ronald Haynes
Dr David Hillman
Dr Edward Holberton
Dr Jana Howlett
Dr M Hrebeniak
Professor Simon Jarvis
Professor Cindi Katz
Dr Ruth Kershner
Professor John Kinsella
Dr Jessica Leech
Ms Mel Legatt
Professor John MacBeath
Dr Sinead Garrigan-Mattar
Dr Jeff Miley
Dr Clément Mouhot
Dr Subha Mukherji
Dr Kamal Munir
Dr Ian Patterson
Ms P Pointon
Mr JH Prynne
Dr Rory O’Bryen
Dr Jonathan Oppenheim
Dr George Oppitz-Trotman
Dr James Riley
Dr Josh Robinson
Dr Corinna Russell
Dr Jason Scott-Warren
Dr Adam Stewart-Wallace
Ms Isobel Urquhart
Dr Bert Vaux
Dr Isabel di Vanna
Dr Chris Warnes
Dr Ruth Watson
Mr Steve Watts
Dr David Whitley
Dr Andrew Zurcher
[This letter was sent to Vice-Chancellor Boryziewicz and the Proctors of the University on 21st February 2012, and posted here one week later.]
__________________________________________________
