University of Wales Lampeter Newsletter

Student Rights & Whistleblowers UK

Bringing Light to Injustice and Maladministration

Student Support Site

Student Complaints Scheme – A Course of Public Justice?

May 25th, 2008 · No Comments

Sunday, 23 July 2006 

To: Kathryn Worsey Welsh Assembly Higher Education and HEFCW Observer
Dale Hall Clerk to HEFCW 

Cc: Mark Williams MP 

Re: Student Complaints Scheme – A Course of Public Justice? 

I appreciate you may wish to seek legal advice before you are able to answer the following questions. 

I would appreciate a statement as to whether or not you have jurisdiction over these issues, either directly or indirectly in that HEFCW can set standards in return for the provision of value for public money. That way I will know if I can then pursue matters relevant to my MP. 

Please confirm that as this scheme replaces the courts then the same degree of propriety is required of the Visitor and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) as is required of the district judge whom they both replace, either under the above act or as with a Visitor under common law. 

Therefore please also confirm that any student is entitled to the same degree of propriety, observance of the rules of natural justice, the HRA 1998 and an unobstructed or un-perverted due process and contempt of court also applies. 

Not agreeing with a verdict is clearly an individual responsibility; however, please confirm that like any other course of public justice to obstruct or pervert it anyway is a criminal offence and as such an entirely different matter for the police and contempt of court is a matter for the Attorney General. 

Please confirm that either within the Act or under a statutory instrument, the (OIA) has jurisdiction in determining who should hear complaints based upon the stated time scale or any ruling they may make on the issue of jurisdiction is therefore legally binding on the University and Visitor.

Following this please confirm that neither the Visitor nor solicitors acting for the University have the authority to overrule the OIA.

Please confirm that while the adjudicator may be different the requirements on the University to play by the rules and relevant laws concerning a course of public justice are the same. 

Once the above has been determined I wish to bring to your attention for advice on how best to proceed, and what action the Assembly and HEFCW intend to take with regard to this matter to maintain public trust. 

The Bishop of St. David’s has obstructed the resolution of this matter since the 8th December 2003.

The Bishop has lied to me in that he claimed in a letter dated the 20th of October he was waiting for guidance from the OIA when in fact they had received no such request. He has also lied when he stated I would receive a fair hearing.

The Bishop of St. David’s is under instruction of the solicitors acting for the University; Eversheds. He has twice decreed that I can only submit my original complaint. He has unlawfully done this contrary to a ruling from the OIA that as papers were lodged with him prior to the 29th of March 2004 that he must hear all arising issues.

The obvious reason for this unlawful obstruction is fourfold; firstly to obstruct me from submitting subsequent complaints concerning the conduct of staff and office bearers. Secondly to prevent me from challenging the fabricated evidence that has miraculously appeared. Thirdly to make sure I do not get a fair hearing and fourthly, to conceal his own wrong doing in this matter.

The Bishop has ignored a request for any form of investigation or an independent element in this inquiry.

With regard to my common law right to hold people to account and that such a right includes a district judge what do you propose to do to ensure I have the right to complain about the Visitor.

The University has submitted fabricated documents to the Bishop that are in contravention of the Data Protection Act as they failed to produce them under the Act as they did not exist. I have complained to the Information Commissioner to this effect.

The University claims that the false accusation of plagiarism was independently confirmed by two other people and yet I have had to resort to the use of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in order to force the University to hand over the evidence to this effect. They cannot do this because such evidence does not exist.

Various staff which includes Zed Zorichak lecturer, Jill Venus former Head of Management and IT, David Austin former Head of School, the External Examiner, the Secretary and Registrar Thomas Roderick and the Vice Chancellor Robert Pearce. Have all lied to cover up the false claim of plagiarism and intimidation during an examination by Zorichak.

You have a situation whereby the University and the credibility of higher education in Wales is a hostage to fortune regarding the conduct of Zorichak. Neither he nor his lies will not stand up to the weight of pressure that is on its way!

Are you going to allow these people take the University down with them?

Because of the concealment you have an insoluble situation whereby I can and will publicly say what I like about these people with no fear of legal action. The University as a corporate and public body may well suffer a loss as a direct result of the actions of its office bearers concealing staff misconduct and financial mismanagement.

Under the Charity Act 1993, the Companies Act 1985 and the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 these office bearers are personally liable to make good any loss the University suffers from any form of wrong doing. Further more they cannot help themselves to free legal advice without going through proper procedures.

Please inform me of what steps you propose to take to protect public funds and recover any loss incurred that stems from this situation or,

If they can conceal it you do not intent to do anything at all and,

What moral leadership and guidance on policy is the Education Minister going to give to HEFCW on this issue?

What do you intend to do about the legal fees office bearers have incurred in concealing their own misconduct and the misconduct of staff, as the bill must now have reached tens of thousands of pounds?

Do you intend to report this matter to the Audit Committee?

Again I must ask what steps does the Assembly intend to take regarding my common law right to hold the office bearers of this institution to account for their actions?

If you agree that students under the Students Complaints Scheme are entitled to the same protection as any other form of public justice what do you intend to do about the obvious failings of the Student Complaints Scheme?

What guidance and moral leadership does the Education Minister intend to offer HEFCW on this issue to ensure Welsh Universities play by the rules?

What protection do you intend to offer students to prevent false accusations such as malicious harassment and character assassination if they complain. Are you going to introduce a sort of witness protection program to protect them from retribution?

Do you intend to offer public advice to UK and overseas students concerning the dangers involved in attending a Welsh University?

If you do not have the necessary legislation in place to deal with this situation then I suggest you do something about it, is that a bit too simple? Or is the Assembly only to happy for this matter to be concealed for fear of political embarrassment?

Lastly do you have any plans to take HEFCW into public ownership to ensure standards in public life commensurate with a civilised democracy instead of the corrupt financial and judicial practices of an undemocratic banana republic?

Tags: Public Justice