Former student fails in legal challenge over Oxford's handling of rape claims
|
Version 0 of 1. A former Oxford student has failed in her attempt to overturn the university’s policy on investigating complaints of rape and sexual assault. The high court, in London, refused Elizabeth Ramey permission to bring a judicial review challenge. She had claimed that the university’s approach of refusing to conduct an inquiry except in extremely limited circumstances was unlawful. Ramey, who waived her right to anonymity, reported an alleged assault in 2011. There was a police investigation but no prosecution followed because of evidential problems. She decided to pursue a claim through the university’s complaints procedure. But Oxford, she claimed, failed to investigate properly or take any action against the alleged perpetrator. Dissatisfied with the university’s response, Ramey took her complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator of Higher Education. The adjudicator partially upheld her case, recommending that Oxford clarify and amend its policies. According to Ramey’s lawyers, the new version of the university’s policy and its procedure on harassment still allowed Oxford to avoid investigating most allegations of serious sexual assault. Her case had been supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the End Violence Against Women Coalition. But the high court on Friday declined to give her permission to bring a full judicial review challenge. Mr Justice Edis said Ramey, who now lives and works in the US, had never been subject to the new policy and had not been “aggrieved by its application”, ruling that “accordingly she lacks standing to bring this claim”. He added: “It appears to me that it is inappropriate for the claimant to be granted permission to bring judicial review to question not the terms of the policy itself, but its application in circumstances in which it has never actually been applied.” Ramey, who was a postgraduate student at Oxford, had argued that the university indirectly discriminates against women by creating a hostile environment and creates a substantial risk that their rights will be violated if such allegations are not investigated. The majority of campus rapes, she said, are committed by repeat offenders. Her solicitor Louise Whitfield, of the law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn, said afterwards: “Unfortunately the judge dismissed Ms Ramey’s case this morning on the basis that the lawfulness of Oxford’s new policy should be considered in the light of the application of that policy. “He indicated that such a claim should be brought by an individual who had had their complaint dealt with under the policy since its introduction in December 2014, rather than Ms Ramey’s, whose complaint was made in 2011 under an earlier version of a similar policy. “The judge specifically recognised that the issues raised were significant. He stated that such a policy (in which the circumstances for investigating rape are limited) might be unlawful if applied inflexibly.” Whitfield continued: “My client is very disappointed with this result and the fact that more women must be the victims of serious sexual violence before it can be established that the university’s policy is unlawful, that it discriminates against women and creates a hostile environment in which they are expected to study with no redress against those who assault them. “We have already been contacted by other women students whose experiences have been similar to Ms Ramey’s and are considering whether a further claim should be brought in the light of the judge’s comments.” |