Improving systems, policies and procedures to prevent and respond to reports of harassment and sexual misconduct  

St John’s College is today sharing the details of work underway to improve procedures, advice, and the support available to students, in cases involving harassment and sexual misconduct.   

Action already taken includes:

  • funding an additional expert support post in the University of Cambridge’s Harassment and Violence Support Service  
  • ongoing review and updating of College disciplinary procedures and rules of behaviour for students, in line with regulatory guidance and higher education good practice
  • establishing a College working group to improve the collective understanding of incidents of harassment or sexual misconduct in relation to the student body, and to consider further support and training
  • work to ensure policies and procedures across the collegiate University are robust, clear, secure, and supportive


Some of these actions follow a disciplinary case in recent years in College, after a student reported a past incident of student-to-student sexual misconduct. Pastoral support was provided at the time of disclosure and beyond, and a College disciplinary investigation began immediately. The College also offered support if the student chose to take the matter to the police or to the University.

The College disciplinary case resulted in the student about whom the complaint was made being permanently removed from St John’s. Expulsion from the College is the most serious sanction St John’s can impose for breaches of its student rules of behaviour. Through the established inter-college transfer process, the removed student was accepted by another College in the University. 

There were some errors and omissions in the College’s procedures and processes in place at the time and St John’s has apologised unreservedly to the student who made the report.  

This disciplinary case raised important wider structural questions about what happens when a student at the University of Cambridge is permanently removed from any of its 31 Colleges because of a serious breach of that College’s rules of behaviour.  A College cannot remove University membership from a student. The established inter-college transfer process at Cambridge is now suspended, pending review.

In agreement with the student who reported the sexual misconduct and recognising that there may be further improvements to make, including those that lie beyond the power of any individual College, St John’s is now commissioning an independent review. 

The review will be carried out by a King’s Counsel* who will look at the handling of the student complaint, the ensuing disciplinary case and the College’s updated procedures and processes related to the handling of allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment. The key findings of the review will be published in due course, not only for the benefit of St John’s students but for all students at the University of Cambridge.  

Heather Hancock, Master of St John’s College, said: “We went to the extent of our authority in this case but it highlighted the need for comprehensive reform across the collegiate University. I particularly welcome the decision to suspend the inter-college transfer process at Cambridge as a significant step in the right direction. 

“Nothing is more important to St John’s than the safety of our students, staff, and Fellows.  We do not tolerate sexual misconduct and harassment, and we should never assume that enough has been done to tackle it.  

“St John’s will continue to provide an environment where our students feel able to disclose incidents of harassment and sexual misconduct, know that they will be supported, and are confident that the College will act on their report.”  

Published: 30/6/2023

*Sarah Hannett KC appointed in October 2023 to lead the review. 

KC Review - updated 17 December 2024 

Sarah Hannett KC was appointed in October 2023 to lead the review.  In Michaelmas Term 2024, the College received Sarah Hannett KC’s report.  She presented findings in relation to Part I of the review and recommendations in relation to Part II of the review.   

Part I of the review addressed these objectives: 

‘In relation to a report of sexual misconduct by one student of the College against another student of the College, to identify any institutional shortcomings, flaws or errors from this concern first being raised in [date] through to the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings in [date], and to report on any lessons remaining to be learned.’ 

Part II of the review addressed these objectives: 

‘In the context of regulatory requirements and established good practice in higher education, to consider and (where appropriate) recommend any further improvements to the procedures and processes for handling allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment in force in the College at the time of this Independent Review and including any wider considerations for the College relating to relevant arrangements in place for the collegiate University.’ 

The findings and recommendations are set out below. In relation to Sarah Hannett KC’s findings, and reflecting the considerable work done by the College since the determination of the disciplinary case (which she acknowledged in her report), the College is confident that Ms Hannett has identified no outstanding institutional shortcomings, flaws or omissions that have not already been addressed.    

Ms Hannett made twelve recommendations for consideration by the College in relation to the objectives of the review.  She commended the College’s commitment to continue improving its approach to harassment and sexual misconduct and noted that her recommendations seek to build on the work done to date.  The majority anticipate the coming into force of the new condition and guidance, and the balance of these new requirements across the collegiate university is yet to be determined.  During this academic year, college & University structures and intercollegiate fora will determine where adjustments to current college policies and procedures may be required in order to comply with the new provisions.   The College will respond accordingly.  Ms Hannett’s other recommendations offer helpful proposals to improve drafting or to further refine existing compliant processes, and these will be included in the wider consideration of measures required by the new regulatory guidance coming into effect next year.   In relation to recommendations 11 and 12, the College continues to play its full part in discussions about intercollegiate University arrangements. The College will continue to give consideration to Ms Hannett’s recommendations. 

The nature of Ms Hannett’s recommendations provides the College with confidence that its current approach and policies are compliant with current regulatory requirements and are in line with sector leading practice. We welcome her suggestions for further refinements that might be made to our policies and procedures, and we are grateful for her acknowledgement of our continuing commitment to support our students in line with best practice.    

Sarah Hannett KC’s statement of findings and recommendations 

The Complainant was a student at St John’s College, Cambridge (“the College”). The Complainant made a report of sexual misconduct to the College against another student of the College, the Respondent. After an investigation and a hearing before the College’s Disciplinary Committee, the College Council expelled the Respondent from the College. Subsequently, with action by the College, the Respondent secured a place at another University of Cambridge college. 

Ms Hannett KC identified twelve institutional shortcomings, being: 

  1. The College’s policy and procedures for handling student disciplinary matters at the time of the complaint were not consistent with the relevant national guidance applicable at the time and were inadequate. 

  1. With one exception, the Fellows and staff involved in responding to the complaint had not received relevant training in harassment and sexual misconduct. 

  1. The record keeping in the College’s investigation fell short of best practice. 

  1. The information given to the Complainant at the outset of the investigation about the different reporting procedures was incomplete. 

  1. The College failed to conduct a risk assessment as to the risk posed by the Respondent to female students in the College. 

  1. The College did not require the Respondent to move from his accommodation in a sufficiently timely manner at the outset of the investigation. 

  1. There was, on one occasion, insufficient separation between the investigating officer’s role and the role played by a Fellow who was acting as an informal supporter to the Complainant. 

  1. There was a failure to provide proper notice to the Complainant that she was not required to give oral evidence to the Disciplinary Committee. 

  1. The reasons given by the College Council in the minutes of the hearing and in the decision letter for finding that misconduct had occurred and for expelling the Respondent from the College were inadequate. 

  1. The request to other colleges was inappropriately supportive of a transfer for the Respondent, and the information provided to other colleges was incomplete and inaccurate in part. 

  1. The College did not address adequately: (i) what precautionary action could or should be put in place both for the complainants and other female students if the Respondent transferred to another college, or (ii) how such precautionary action could be enforced (if at all). 

  1. The College ought to have arranged for the complainants to be told formally that the Respondent had transferred to another college in the University. 

Sarah Hannett KC made twelve recommendations for consideration by the College: 

* indicates a recommendation reflecting new regulatory guidance which comes into effect on 1 August 2025. 

Recommendations concerning College culture and the prevention of harassment and sexual misconduct 

   *1.  The College should devise and implement a strategy for the prevention of harassment and sexual misconduct in the College (“the Prevention Strategy”). The Prevention Strategy should be published as part of the Sexual Misconduct Policy. 

   *2.  The Prevention Strategy should be subject to regular review, and the outcome of each review should be reported to the College Council and published, to the extent appropriate, to the student body. 

   3.  The College should consider whether there are steps that the Student Advisers on Reporting and Support Options could take to improve students’ awareness of their role. 

Recommendations concerning training 

   *4.  The College should amend the Sexual Misconduct Policy to include an explanation of the training that will be provided for students: (i) to raise awareness of and to prevent harassment and sexual misconduct; and (ii) as to the content of the Guide to Student Behaviour insofar as it concerns harassment and sexual misconduct. The Sexual Misconduct Policy should explain how the College will evaluate the effectiveness of the training, i.e. whether measurable changes in attitudes and behaviour have taken place as a result. 

   *5.  The College should consider providing specific training for some or all newly elected officials of the JCR and SBR, namely: (i) on the content of the Guide to Student Behaviour, (ii) on receiving disclosures of harassment and sexual misconduct; and (iii) bystander training. The College’s policy on the provision of training to officers of the JCR and SBR should be recorded in the Sexual Misconduct Policy. 

   *6.  The College should devise a statement setting out the training that will be provided for Fellows and staff in respect of harassment and sexual misconduct, including training on the freedom of speech principles. The statement should identify the different types of training provided by the College, as well as whether each type of training is mandatory and, if so, for which roles. The statement should be published in the Sexual Misconduct Policy. 

Recommendations concerning the College’s Guide to Student Behaviour  

(This Guide is available to see on the College website here) 

It comprises: the Student Code of Conduct; the Sexual Misconduct Policy; the Harassment and Bullying Policy; guidance on raising a concern and guidance on welfare; guidance on informal resolution of a concern about the behaviour of another student; the  Student Disciplinary Procedure with explanatory flow charts for standard and serious concerns; and guidance on sanctions for breaching the Student Code of Conduct.) 

   7.  The College should consider revising the Sexual Misconduct Policy as follows: 

      *a. combining the Sexual Misconduct Policy and the Harassment and Bullying Policy to create a single combined policy, retaining the current definition of “sexual misconduct” and aligning the definition of harassment with Office for Students’ condition E6. 

      *b. amending the combined policy to include references to the importance of freedom of speech and a rebuttable presumption to the effect that students being exposed to any of the following is unlikely to amount to harassment: (i) the content of higher education course materials, including but not limited to books, videos, sound recordings, and pictures; and (ii) statements made and views expressed by a person as part of teaching, research or discussion about any subject matter which is connected with the content of a higher education course.  

      c. revising section 1.4 (“confidentiality”) to separate the obligations on the College to keep material confidential, and the expectation that reporting persons, respondents, and witnesses will keep information disclosed to them confidential, and to clarify that confidentiality does not prevent reporting persons, respondents and witnesses from seeking advice and support. 

      d. restructuring sections 1.5 and 1.6 to create a single section on reporting.  

      e. amending sections 1.5 and 1.6 to clarify that a reporting person can disclose to anyone that they feel comfortable doing so, that this can be done in person or online, and that the College will accept reports on behalf of victims or witnesses from third parties. 

      f. amending paragraph 1.7 to clarify that support applies to anyone making a disclosure of harassment and sexual misconduct, explicitly stating that academic support will be provided to all affected parties, and that support can be provided at all relevant times both during and after an investigation. 

   8.  The College should consider amending the Student Disciplinary Procedure as follows:

      a. clarifying that investigators in harassment or sexual misconduct cases must have received appropriate training, either in the definition of “investigator” in section 1.3 or in paragraph 1.6.7.  

      b. including definitions of the terms "sexual misconduct" and "harassment" as per the College’s Sexual Misconduct Policy and the Harassment and Bullying Policy. 

      c. amending section 1.5 on precautionary action to include: 

  • a requirement that where possible the views of the reporting person on precautionary action are taken and considered, and that the respondent is given an opportunity to make representations. 
  • allowing precautionary action after an investigation and pending decisions by the College Council or Disciplinary Appeals Committee.
  • enabling reporting persons to report breaches of precautionary measures to the Dean of Discipline.

 

   d.  requiring written records of advice given to the reporting person and their decision on reporting in section 1.6.2. 

   e. permitting reporting persons to be accompanied to investigatory meetings or disciplinary hearings by specified individuals or representatives from the University Harassment and Violence Support Service or other University organisations. 

   f. deleting paragraph 1.6.12 on malicious or vexatious complaints as it is unnecessary and may deter complainants. 

   g. confirming that Members of the College Council without training in handling harassment or sexual misconduct cases should not participate in disciplinary meetings or as Disciplinary Appeals Committee members. 

   h. devising a policy to inform reporting persons about the progress of their complaints, including details on hearings, evidence requirements, and appeals. 

   i. clarifying in paragraph 1.11.25(e) that the College Council can make adjustments for witnesses on its own initiative. 

   *9.  The College should publish the Guide to Student Behaviour in a prominent position on the College’s website that is publicly and easily accessible, ensure that it is shared with students and staff at least once a year and is referenced in key documents such as the prospectus and the student handbook. 

Recommendations concerning the interrelationship between the College’s disciplinary procedure and other reporting routes 

   10.  The College should devise a flowchart for harassment and sexual misconduct setting out the three reporting options, the process each follows, and the sanctions available for each. 

Recommendations concerning the relevant arrangements in place for the collegiate University 

   11.  The College should provide such assistance as it considers appropriate to the University’s review of its statutes and processes concerning the status of students expelled from their college. 

   12.  The College should consider what steps could be taken, in conjunction with other colleges and the University as appropriate, to ensure that students feel able to refer complaints of harassment and sexual misconduct to the University’s Office of Student Conduct, Complaints and Appeals.