Queen's Bench Division
Before Lord Parker, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Phillimore and Mr Justice Ashworth
An Oxford post-graduate taking a diploma course who was expelled from the university after disturbances in the Clarendon Building in February failed in an application for leave to apply for an order of certiorari to quash university decisions ordering his expulsion and imposing other penalties.
The application was made by Mr Stephen Philip Bolchover, aged 23, of West Didsbury, Manchester, in respect of decisions of the proctors in April and an appeal committee in May dismissing his appeal.
Mr S. C. Silkin Q.C. and Mr E. F. Monier-Williams for the applicant.
Mr Silkin said that, as a result of his expulsion, the applicant, who had completed his B.A. course and had been engaged on a one-year diploma course at Brasenose college, was prevented from gaining his diploma and M.A. degree.
The grounds of the application were that the proceedings before the proctors did not accord with the principles of natural justice in a number of respects, and the appeal committee hearing was not a re-hearing but rather an examination of the complaints he made about the hearing before the proctors. The appeal committee was wrong in law and in rejecting the complaints.
The disciplinary powers of the proctors were to be found in Statuta Titulus XV of the University, set out in the Proctors' Memorandum published in the Michaelmas term, 1969. The statutes were made in accordance with powers conferred by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1923. A note to the memorandum has stated that Statute XV was under review as a result of the report of the committee on relations with junior members, under the chairmanship of Professor H. L. A. Hart, but remained in force until the changes were made.
The statute provided that no junior member of the university should engage in conduct liable to bring the name of the university into disrepute or any conduct lacking in respect for any member, officer or servant of the university, and that any junior member who engaged in any such conduct should be suitably punished at the discretion of the proctors or their deputies. It provided for the appointment of the appeal committee and for its decision to be final, and enabled the proctors to make and publish regulations for the conduct of junior members, who were university members before admission to membership of Convocation.
The long and short of the applicant's complaint was that he was prevented from putting his case properly before the proctors. They refused to allow a short-hand writer to be present so that the applicant had to make his own notes and could not give proper instructions to a senior member of the university who was his adviser.
He was given inadequate notice of the case against him, the most serious charges being that he assaulted the University Marshal in the deputy Marshal's office in the Clarendon Building on February 23rd, and assaulted him in the police general room in that building on the same day. The applicant denied that he assaulted the Marshall in either place, but the proctors restricted cross-examination.
Some 60 students were milling around in the building, and proceedings had been taken against other students, counsel continued. The possibility of confusion between incidents was great. The applicant was involved in several incidents. He had been prepared to deal with what he thought was to be alleged against him, but different incidents were alleged, and he had no proper opportunity to meet the case in fact made against him.
The nature of the proceedings caused him and his adviser to be beset with unnecessary and unfair difficulties. The defence was prevented from putting forward relevant matters.
The applicant's adviser was a lecturer in law, who represented the applicant and other junior members of the university not through sympathy with their cases but because he had been asked to do so as a senior member, and they could not obtain assistance from anyone else. He did not particularly relish the job of representing them, and his object was to see that young men with serious charges brought against them had a just and fair hearing. It was with deep regret that he had to depose that, in his submission, the applicant's trial was contrary to that natural justice.
Mr Silkin said that one criticism of the procedure was that no lawyers were included. Obviously sending a man down from college might have a considerable effect on his career, and it was important that any tribunal dealing with disciplinary matters should have the benefit of proper legal advice and should conduct proceedings in a way which not only complied with justice but also was manifestly seen to be just.
The Lord Chief Justice said that it might be that another form of tribunal would be ideal, but the form of tribunal had been set up by statute.
The Lord Chief Justice, giving their Lordships' decision, said: "The court has carefully considered the papers in this case and all that you have said. But at the end of the day they remain unconvinced that the conduct of the hearing before the proctors offended against such rules of natural justice as were applicable in the circumstances. To put it more simply, they are not satisfied that the hearing was unfair. But it is only right to add that, even if the court felt that there might be something to be inquired into, nevertheless, as a matter of discretion, they would, having regard to the appeal, have refused you leave. In the result leave is refused."
Their Lordships ordered that there should be legal aid taxation of the applicant's costs.
Solicitors: Wegg-Prosser & Co.