HOK -v- University of Greenwich (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001383

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

15 April 2026

Before:

HHJ Karen Walden-Smith

Between:

The King
on the application of
HOK

-v-

University of Greenwich

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY HER HONOUR JUDGE KAREN WALDEN-SMITH sitting as a Judge of the High Court

  1. Anonymity: Anonymity of the Claimant is ordered in order to prohibit potential jigsaw identification of the Claimant. The papers in this case are not to be released without further order of the court.
  2. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. Interim Relief: The application for interim relief is refused.
  4. Costs: The Defendant is to submit any application for costs within 7 days of the date of this order. The Claimant is to respond within 14 days of any application for costs.

REASONS

  1. The Claimant had enrolled with the Defendant University on a Masters Course. He has been expelled from the University after the University found that he had sexually assaulted a fellow student. As the Claimant was admitted into the UK on a study visa, the University informed the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he is no longer a student and has ceased sponsoring his visa. The Claimant states that the Home Office has cancelled his visa and he is required to leave the UK by 1 May 2025. This application has therefore been dealt with as an urgent matter.
  2. The Claimant seeks permission to bring judicial review proceedings; an anonymity order (supported by the Defendant) and the following remedies by way of interim relief: that his student visa sponsorship be reinstated until the judicial review is concluded; that he be allowed to continue his studies with full student rights until the judicial review is concluded; and that he be permitted to remain in University accommodation until the judicial review is concluded. While the anonymity order is granted in order to ensure that there cannot be “jigsaw” identification of the complainant, as the Claimant mentions her in his claim, the application for judicial review and interim relief is refused.
  3. The Claimant has set out his challenge to the determinations of the Defendant University under more than 11 headings, those headings can be summarised as being allegations of procedural irregularity or unfairness at various stages of the process, predetermination and a failure to take into account various submissions.
  4. For completeness, The grounds set out by the Claimant are as follows:
    a. Ground 1: Procedural Unfairness- Failure to provide adequate particulars at the outset of the investigation.
    b. Ground 2: Procedural Unfairness – Reliance on revoked regulations
    c. Ground 3: Procedural Unfairness – To such extent that the pleaded ground is not a repeat of Ground 1, Ground 3 raises a separate issue of imposing a suspension without a risk assessment.
    d. Ground 4: Failure to Consider Representations and Omission of Relevant Evidence – namely the failure to preserve or consider relevant CCTV evidence.
    e. Ground 5: Procedural Unfairness – Failure to provide adequate particulars and evidence ahead of the Stage 1 investigation interview.
    f. Ground 6: Procedural Unfairness and Failure to consider relevant evidence – namely the failure to pursue CCTV evidence.
    g. Ground 7: Failure to Address Grounds of Appeal, Continuing Procedural Unfairness, and Pre-Determination – namely the failure of the review of the investigation to uphold the Claimant’s complaint regarding the investigation and proceeding to Stage 2.
    h. Ground 8: Pre-Determination and Procedural Unfairness at Stage 2—namely, the presentation of the investigators report amounted to a pre-determination of the outcome.
    i. Ground 9: Procedural Unfairness, Failure to Preserve Relevant Evidence and Unreasonableness – namely the failure to preserve CCTV which would have aided the panel in determining the veracity of the complainant’s and Claimant’s accounts.
    j. Ground 10: Procedural Unfairness, Failure to Consider Material Evidence and Panel Influences. Specifically, the panel failed to address the following (in summary):
    (i). The Claimant’s denial.
    (ii) The door logs.
    (iii) Inconsistent witness testimony by the complainant and other witnesses and the physical layout of the Claimant’s room.
    (iv) Alternative explanations for the Complainant’s mood. k. Ground 11 (first use of Ground 11): Other Failures to consider challenges against the evidence being used against the Claimant. Namely unfair inferences were drawn against the Claimant for inconsistencies in recall, the alternative explanations for the complainant’s presentation and reliance on evidence of the complainant’s boyfriend. The Claimant also complains that the complainant was not questioned by the panel.
    l. Ground 11 (second use of Ground 11):”Proof that stage 2 notes are not true” – The Claimant points to the credibility of the complainant on the basis that she did not notice that the heating was not working and the failure to note this submission in the notes.
    m. Unnumbered Ground: the Claimant complains that his university access was cancelled prior to the determination of his review.
  5. If there are allegations of misconduct against a student the Defendant operates a multi-stage procedure as follows: At stage 0 – for complaints which are relatively contained and relatively minor, a preliminary investigation is undertaken; At stage 1 an investigation is undertaken by an independent party to the accused and the complainant. There is scope to complain about the investigator’s report before proceeding to stage 2; At stage 2 a hearing is held where the accused is presented with the result of the investigator’s report. The panel consists of three members, one of whom is appointed by the Students’ Union; A final right to a review is also allowed where an assessment is made of whether the stage 2 hearing was conducted fairly, new evidence is available or the decision reached was unreasonable. This has powers to substitute the findings of the Stage 2 Panel and or commute a sanction.
  6. On 24 September 2025, a complaint was made against the Claimant of serious sexual assault that occurred on 19 September 2025 in a dormitory room. On 30 September 2025, an investigation was launched by the Defendant. On 10 October 2025, precautionary measures were taken against the Claimant by the Defendant, however, these were amended on 17 October 2025. On 16 October 2025, the Claimant wrote requesting that CCTV is retained “if the area where this incident is supposed to have taken place was covered by working CCTV”. On 5 and 7 November 2025, the Claimant was interviewed. On 12 November 2025, the result of Stage 1 was that the matter should be referred to a Stage 2 disciplinary panel. On 17 November 2025, the Claimant appealed the finding of Stage 1 and this was rejected on 4 December 2025. On 4 December 2025, the Claimant was invited to his stage 2 interview and full particulars were provided as well as supporting evidence. On 28 January 2026, a re-arranged hearing took place virtually without the complainant appearing. The panel concluded that it was likely on the balance of probabilities that the allegation was made out and the Claimant was informed on 11 February 2026. On 24 February 2026, the Claimant requested a final review of the finding of the Stage 2 Panel on the basis that “the relevant procedure was not correctly followed” and a series of complaints. On 19 March 2026, the Defendant dismissed the Claimant’s complaint under the final review request. This held that the findings of the Stage 2 panel were reasonably open to them and were not unreasonable, and dismissed all the complaints. There was no CCTV of the dormitory where the alleged assault took place.
  7. The investigation was undertaken on behalf of the University by a former police officer by interviewing the complainant, five witnesses and the Claimant. A decision was made that the complainant’s evidence was detailed and precise and was consistent with the other witnesses and the key fob data whereas it was noted that the Claimant’s version of events evolved over time and exhibited inconsistencies. The Defendant was entitled to come to the conclusions it did. There was no procedural unfairness.
  8. The grounds set out by the Claimant are not made out. The Claimant was provided with all the evidence required for the first hearing. He knew throughout the nature of the allegation and the procedure adopted the correct regulations, there being not material inconsistency between the 2024 and 2025 regulations in any event. There is no evidence of predetermination and the decisions reached were neither procedurally unfair nor irrational. The decisions made were clearly on the basis of consideration of the evidence provided and the thorough investigation.
  9. There has been no breach of the Claimant’s rights under the HRA and there is no basis for granting permission to judicially review the Defendant.
  10. In these circumstances the principles to grant interim relief under American Cyanamid v Ethicon is not made out. The claim for interim relief is refused.

Signed: HHJ Karen Walden-Smith

Date: 15 April 2026