Free speech complaints
Deciding whether a complaint is justified
We will decide whether a complaint is justified, partly justified or not justified once we have reviewed the information provided by the relevant parties.
There are two areas we consider when making our decision. We will consider whether it is more likely than not that:
- the institution has breached, or is breaching, its free speech duty; and
- the person submitting the complaint has suffered adverse consequences as a result of the breach.
If we decide that the institution has breached, or is breaching, its free speech duty, we will determine that the complaint is partly justified (if resulting in no adverse consequences or only minor or trivial adverse consequences) or justified (if resulting in more than minor or trivial adverse consequences).
If we decide that there was no breach by the institution, we will determine that the complaint is not justified.
Free speech duty breaches
The institution’s free speech duty is its duty to take steps to secure freedom of speech, set out in section A1 of Part A1 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.
We have set out guidance for compliance with the duty as part of Regulatory advice 24: Guidance related to freedom of speech.
We will use the three-step framework in this guidance to assess whether it is more likely than not that an institution has breached its duty when we make decisions about complaints.
Adverse consequences
The following table sets out the framework we will use to assess whether it is more likely than not that a complainant has suffered adverse consequences, and to what extent.
Any adverse consequences must be a result of a breach of the free speech duty, and the complainant will need to evidence both the adverse consequences and how they resulted from a breach of the duty. The same event can affect different people differently, so a complainant should also consider how they will evidence the adverse consequences that they claim they have suffered.
|
Category |
Description |
|---|---|
|
No adverse consequences |
This is likely to look like the absence of consequences described below. |
|
Trivial adverse consequences |
Trivial adverse consequences are likely to include consequences which have a low impact on the complainant. These consequences are likely to be of a short duration and may result in emotions or practical inconveniences that are in line with what an average person would be expected to deal with on an occasional basis and would have no substantive impact on the day-to-day work or wellbeing of a complainant. For example, the individual may suffer annoyance, frustration, worry or inconvenience. |
|
Minor adverse consequences |
Minor adverse consequences are likely to include consequences which have a relatively low impact on the complainant. These consequences are likely to be of a short to a medium duration, but of a longer duration than trivial adverse consequences and have a minimal impact on the day-to-day work or wellbeing of the complainant. For example, the individual may suffer minor distress or embarrassment. |
|
Moderate adverse consequences |
Moderate adverse consequences are likely to include consequences which have a relatively significant impact on the complainant, that is greater than a trivial or minor adverse consequence. These consequences are likely to be of a longer duration and impact on the day-to-day work or wellbeing of the complainant, including (for instance) the complainant’s academic performance, research opportunities, development opportunities, reputation or similar. For example, the individual may suffer a loss of promotion opportunities, withdrawn speaking, lecturing or research opportunities, moderate reputational damage or some financial loss. |
|
Severe adverse consequences |
Severe adverse consequences are likely to include consequences which have a significant or lasting impact on the complainant. These consequences are likely to be permanent or last for a significant amount of time and impact the complainant to the point where they are unable to live their life as they did before. For example, the individual may suffer a job loss, be repeatedly denied opportunities to pursue research, or face significant reputational damage or significant financial loss. |
This is an illustrative, non-exhaustive description of the possible adverse consequences and a complainant may wish to refer to this table if submitting a free speech complaint.
Describe your experience of using this website